#himtoo

[–]TacticusThrowaway 317 points318 points319 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dank_Meems 141 points142 points143 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]TacticusThrowaway 36 points37 points38 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dank_Meems 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheDarkMaster13 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dank_Meems 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tacomastr -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dank_Meems 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tacomastr 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

That hasn't been the case for me at all. I'm sorry you had a bad experience with it. Toxic masculinity for me is similar to the idea that "men don't cry" and what not. Something society expects of us as men and as such inhibits our mental growth. Being taught from a young age that men are to behave a certain way and to not deviate from it, thats the idea of toxic masculinity to me.

edit: its not men being toxic with their masculinity, its men being forced to subscribe to toxic concepts attributed to masculinity: such as picking fights, hiding emotions, etc.

edit edit: found a neato definition: Toxic masculinity is a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits—which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual—are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away.

[–]Zoenboen 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]thamasthedankengine 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]CODYsaurusREX 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thamasthedankengine -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CODYsaurusREX 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PikaTools 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dank_Meems 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PrettyDecentSort 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dank_Meems 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]freddydangerface 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Masterpass 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Incredibly true. My best friend (who happens to be FLAMING gay) had his MeToo moment when a girl from college started talking shit about him and making some pretty disgusting innuendo because he wouldn't sleep with her when she made some physical advances on him (because, you know...lack of dick and all). Nothing came of it other than some nasty business with a friend of hers and some looks around campus, but it still sucks.

He posted about it on Twitter when MeToo was in full swing, and the reaction is exactly what you'd expect. "Men can't be raped", "stop co-opting a movement for women by women pig", "nobody cares, you're a man, why are you so fragile", on and on and on.

Honestly, seeing that happen to him (despite him laughing it off) severed my single remaining sliver of respect for feminism, and really started making me go out of my way to start aggressively delineating it from women's rights activism.

[–]thamasthedankengine 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TacticusThrowaway 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RezaWasTaken 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TacticusThrowaway 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RezaWasTaken 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpezIsAChild 113 points114 points115 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]kwyllie93 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SpezIsAChild 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jaibamon 102 points103 points104 points 7 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link

[–]idealcastle 41 points42 points43 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jaibamon 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Movements like this one, comments on Twitter or here on Reddit, and just talking about the subject help to change that perception, in the same way the media and society has changed their perception among other things, like sexual orientation, gender identification, even the #metoo movement.

It's about to keep showing how a person's life can be affected when they're being accused of a crime, and make people understand that it's not about defending criminals, but to behave, as a collective, about what do we think about someone who is being accused, yet not proven guilty. I think organizations that are against people sharing false rape accusations doesn't understand this.

In other words, when a public figure is accused of a crime, we as society, and the media, should behave better and wait for a verdict from the court before changing our opinion about them.

[–]lidsville76 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ModsAreThoughtCops 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The GOP?

If all that’s being asked for is an investigation into the allegations, why did Feinstein sit on the information for WEEKS without bringing it to the attention of the committee so they could investigate (or ask for FBI investigation) back in August? Why did Feinstein immediately tell Ford to find lawyers (and recommend lawyers) but not ask Kavanaugh about this during the 32 hour questioning? Not a fucking peep from anyone, waiting on the right time to launch the smear campaign.

Feinstein had every opportunity to keep this private and launch an investigation 2 months ago. She didn’t. She gives zero fucks about the “truth”. She gives zero fucks about an “investigation” (which is currently underway by the committee).

She wants delays, and is willing to destroy this man’s (and the lady’s) lives and families in order to get them.

And it’s the GOP’s fault?

Wow...

[–]lidsville76 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ModsAreThoughtCops -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ModsAreThoughtCops 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]MikeIsSmart 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]LateralThinker13 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]thamasthedankengine 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MikeIsSmart 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]LateralThinker13 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

My point is that there are MAJOR issues with this guy - potential problems with drinking, gambling, lying under oath,

Um... what? Okay, I'll bite. I googled "Kavanaugh drinking gambling" to see if there's anything to what you're saying about his character, since I've seen nothing credible to anything like this.

First posts - Huffpo and Salon. Oh goody.

https://www.salon.com/2018/09/13/does-brett-kavanaugh-have-a-gambling-problem-sen-sheldon-whitehouse-wants-to-know/

Salon has a piece about his baseball ticket issues, so gambling.... nope. No charges, no allegations even, just speculation on somebody they don't like. Nothing there.

So let's try Huffpo.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kavanaugh-high-school-pal-writes-in-memoir-of-being-wild-drunk-with-girls_us_5b9f23ebe4b013b0977bf68b

Mark Judge has written a memoir. Interestingly, while HE describes himself regularly getting blackout drunk, he recently said he never saw his buddy Kavanaugh get that way.

But wait, maybe he's just saying this to cover for his friend?

Nope. His memoir was published in 1997, and Kavanaugh is never mentioned.

As for lying under oath, where'd he do that? Unless it's in denial of the three accusations of drinking, gambling, or sexual impropriety, I don't see where you have a leg to stand. ANd he'd only be lying if one of those was proven true, with all current evidence to the contrary.

[–]MikeIsSmart 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MikeIsSmart2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RhapsodiacReader 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kravego 41 points42 points43 points 7 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]ryebr3ad_ 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnotherKramer 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ScoutforHire 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kravego 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]immibis 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]umar4812 7 years ago* [recovered] (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]lidsville76 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]tylerkelly43215 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ausei 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ausei 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ausei -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lidsville76 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hindusach1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thamasthedankengine -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mayorodoyle 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]ModsAreThoughtCops 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]MikeIsSmart 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]ModsAreThoughtCops 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]MikeIsSmart-7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ModsAreThoughtCops7 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MikeIsSmart1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ModsAreThoughtCops2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MikeIsSmart3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ModsAreThoughtCops2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ModsAreThoughtCops2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And that could have been requested if the Dems would have CHOSEN to participate in the investigation. An investigation which is normally bipartisan was WILLINGLY skipped out on by the Dems.

But they chose to not participate. So why are they now claiming that they had no say and that those people should come in? They literally could have OFFICIALLY requested they come in if they would’ve participated.

The Dems did not participate. That means they knew the majority was looking at evidence to swear in, and the Dems did NOT show up to argue that instead of swearing in written testimony, they should request the witnesses come in.

They waited UNTIL THIS HEARING to make those requests of the FBI and NOT their own investigative committee INSTEAD of at a time where they could be heard by the investigative committee itself. They willingly forfeited their chance to have the witnesses show up instead of submitting written testimony.

[–]LET-7 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gamer_Jack_Gameson 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]clickerzeros 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jaibamon 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]LET-7 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LateralThinker13 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LET-7 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]clickerzeros -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]romulusnr 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jaibamon 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thamasthedankengine 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]some_words44 534 points535 points536 points 7 years ago (191 children) | Copy Link

[–]victorfiction 7 years ago* [recovered] (121 children) | Copy Link

[–]FeierInMeinHose 40 points41 points42 points 7 years ago (111 children) | Copy Link

[–]victorfiction 7 years ago* [recovered] (56 children) | Copy Link

[–]haxdal 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhippersnapperUT99 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atheist101 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheVineyard00 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sneakpeekbot -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mekkah 7 years ago* [recovered] (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]superzepto 48 points49 points50 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mekkah12 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sinsilenc 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hindusach1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thamasthedankengine 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]OccupyMyBallSack 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vinccool96 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]gringojack 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Vinccool96-4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hindusach1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Atheist101 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]peachesgp 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]grandmasbroach 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]victorfiction 7 years ago* [recovered] (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]grandmasbroach 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]victorfiction20 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tim_tim_salabim 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]grandmasbroach -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bofij 7 years ago* [recovered] (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]victorfiction 7 years ago* [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bofij 7 years ago* [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]victorfiction 7 years ago* [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tparkert144 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]victorfiction1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tparkert142 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]victorfiction2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bofij3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]victorfiction3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bofij3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]victorfiction2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bofij2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WhippersnapperUT99 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]peachesgp 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]grandmasbroach 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]peachesgp 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]grandmasbroach 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhippersnapperUT99-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sgt-Butter -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thamasthedankengine 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WhippersnapperUT99 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]jbirdie3 -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]victorfiction 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thamasthedankengine 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]clockticker -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]peachesgp 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atheist101 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Etheros64 28 points29 points30 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zumbert 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BoabHonker 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Etheros64 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhippersnapperUT99 -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alleyria 36 points37 points38 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]masgrada5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ellamking 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thamasthedankengine 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mayorodoyle 49 points50 points51 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]freddydangerface 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]digitalpizza1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Having had the not-pleasure of listening to rather a lot of accounts like this, yes I do believe. Not as a policy, just because her story and mannerisms and behavior all match. I was ready to hear someone who might be making up a story for political reasons, but she was very credible.

For example going into therapy in 2012 because of her irrational insistence on altering the house to have two front doors. That fits with her story of hiding in the toilet, waiting for the guys to go downstairs, then going down the stairs not knowing if she was going to make it to the front door and feeling a huge relief when outside.

Saying in 2012 to her therapist she was attacked by boys from a posh boys school who were now highly placed in Washington, or something like that, is not an exact identifier but it is a smallish pool.

I was surprised by the claim her whole life had been affected until I heard her speak about suffocation. Mortal fear hugely aggravates PTSD. I imagine that is why despite our beloved "women do half the DV and rapes" statistics the facts are that female perps cause only a small fraction of the most severely affected DV victims, and a tiny fraction of the severely affected sexual assault and rape victims.

Kavanaugh by contrast did not impress me as a witness. Court is partly theatre, and he has a lot of experience in it. A guy with his experience can restrain his emotions. He was angry but I don't believe he was uncontrolled. I prefer the story that Trump felt his practice performance needed more emotion, more anger because the target of the performance was not in the room, it was Trump's base and they want their anger expressed.

[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]immibis 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]freddydangerface -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

I have seen scores of accounts of traumatic incidents from people with PTSD, and read a lot about it by psychologists and therapists.
Her recollection seems perfectly normal to me.

It is very common for traumatic memories to be fragmented and to have gaps. Maybe they have a very clear visual memory of the moment before a car crash, then some detail the moment after the crash, but don't remember the big obvious things which they must have seen, and don't remember how they got onto the sofa in a house nearby and who handed them a hot drink, and they may be wildly wrong about the time scale and order of events.

One of the weirder ones: A soldier had been home from Iraq for months and was snuggling up on the couch with his fiancee to watch a romcom movie. No stress, no previous problems. He starts having what he thinks is a heart attack. Hospital diagnoses a panic attack, but he has nothing to panic about. (This is called an emotional flashback, you only get the emotions not the memory they are attached to).

He starts being generally anxious and has more panic attacks. Reminiscing with his buddies he eventually realises he has no memory of several battles he had been in. Not just details or fragments as is more common, but he was not aware of the fact he had been involved in those battles at all.
By now he was taking serious anti-anxiety meds and had been diagnosed with PTSD. He went to university and did well despite severe anxiety extending to what sounded like delusions about his classmates. Gradually got somewhat better. Amazing guy, and lucky to have a wife who could handle it.

Watch the video of Christine Blasey-Ford's testimony, here is a 5 minute clip:

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000006131392/christine-blasey-ford-testimony-recap.html?

[–]freddydangerface 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]freddydangerface1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]antilopes1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MikeIsSmart 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]GCMythix 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]LateralThinker13 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]GCMythix 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]IceVest -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]freddydangerface 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IceVest-4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LateralThinker13 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]IceVest -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]LateralThinker13 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BoabHonker2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IceVest0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LateralThinker134 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IceVest0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MikeIsSmart 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NolanHarlow 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]victorfiction 7 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]digitalpizza-3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]victorfiction4 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]immibis1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Etheros64 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rawbface 37 points38 points39 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Helloshutup 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FeierInMeinHose -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Honztastic -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ayoc_Maiorce -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Ayoc_Maiorce -12 points-11 points-10 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]vakeraj 7 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]LateralThinker13 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]newandtemporary 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LateralThinker13 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Heavycamera -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BoabHonker 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ayoc_Maiorce -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]necropantser 70 points71 points72 points 7 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]ryebr3ad_ 38 points39 points40 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]necropantser 40 points41 points42 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]ryebr3ad_ 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]necropantser 33 points34 points35 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

People who don't want him in that office can accuse him of anything, then wax hysterical about how an investigation needs to happen until they're blue in the face.

So true. Obviously he is totally innocent. Better hand him a lifetime appointment. /s

OK, back to being serious.... I mean we all know what you are saying. It's obvious. That is why you investigate. These accusations are not without merit. If you read the accusations by 3 different women you see there is evidence well before today that they confided in people about these incidents. Not every guy accused of sexual crimes is innocent and accusations are not always used as a tool of power. Read the supporting facts behind the accusations and you will see that they deserve investigating.

If you refuse to investigate all accusations out of fear that accusations are just used as a tool of power then you deny justice to potential victims, male and female alike.

[–]newandtemporary 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]freddydangerface 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]necropantser 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]freddydangerface 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]necropantser -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]freddydangerface2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hindusach1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cranktheguy 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]None_of_your_Beezwax 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]freddydangerface 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NdamukongSuhDude -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ryebr3ad_ 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]cranktheguy 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ryebr3ad_ 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hindusach1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]immibis 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DeathByPianos -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]lidsville76 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LateralThinker13 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]necropantser 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]LateralThinker13 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thamasthedankengine 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WhippersnapperUT99 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But Kavanaugh isn't on trial. This is a job interview. It's a different bar.

So, if a man and a woman are competing for a job, it would be OK for the woman to have her girlfriend call the hiring manager and say that the man tried to rape her, so he shouldn't be hired?

I'm so sick of this "It's just a job interview" narrative. That doesn't make false accusation of rape or other injustices any better. That doesn't make men any less victims of unsubstantiated allegations.

If Kavanaugh suffers a negative consequence from an unsubstantiated allegation, then we have just weaponized them. What would happen if every candidate for political office and every judicial nomination suffered numerous false accusations of rape that cannot be proven true or false? Our political system could attain a new low.

[–]necropantser 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So, if a man and a woman are competing for a job, it would be OK for the woman to have her girlfriend call the hiring manager and say that the man tried to rape her, so he shouldn't be hired?

Strawman argument. Nobody is proposing that except you because its an easy counterargument to knock down.

I'm so sick of this "It's just a job interview" narrative.

Sorry man, but you know... that is exactly what it is.

That doesn't make false accusation of rape or other injustices any better.

LOL, I love how you have already concluded that the accusations are false. Bias much?

That doesn't make men any less victims of unsubstantiated allegations.

They are only unsubstantiated because there has been no investigation. You afraid of finding the truth?

If Kavanaugh suffers a negative consequence from an unsubstantiated allegation, then we have just weaponized them.

And.... just what if it's true? Does your fear of weaponization take priority over a persons right to name their attacker? Should we silence people over fear of weaponization? Should Terry Crews shut up too? Take note, most people are just asking for time to find out the truth. Since when is taking the time to find out the truth a "negative consequence"?

What would happen if every candidate for political office and every judicial nomination suffered numerous false accusations of rape that cannot be proven true or false?

What would happen if sexual assault victims were forced to keep quiet because nobody ever believed them? Would that result in a government or political party overrun with sexual predators and a political system that attained a new low?

[–]WhippersnapperUT99 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

So, if a man and a woman are competing for a job, it would be OK for the woman to have her girlfriend call the hiring manager and say that the man tried to rape her, so he shouldn't be hired?

Strawman argument. Nobody is proposing that except you because its an easy counterargument to knock down.

False You either do not know what a strawman argument is or are being intellectually dishonest. The scenario I described is the direct and logical result of exactly the position you are taking. "But Kavanaugh isn't on trial. This is a job interview. It's a different bar." You're saying that inconvenient stuff like concepts of due process, standards of evidence, and most importantly the truth of the matter asserted don't matter and that accusations without evidence should be weaponized against people because "this is a job interview".

LOL, I love how you have already concluded that the accusations are false. Bias much?

I don't know if the allegations are true or false, but in the absence of any shreds of evidence and within the context of this being a politically motivated accusation, her claims should be regarded as being arbitrary and thus of no actionable value until at least some evidence is uncovered. So far the four people she claims were at the pool party have all said that they have no recollection of any such event.

That doesn't make men any less victims of unsubstantiated allegations.

They are only unsubstantiated because there has been no investigation. You afraid of finding the truth?

I am all in favor of an FBI investigation! Bring it on! I predict that the FBI will find nothing substantive about a 36 year old allegation and that the lack of any specific evidence will blow up in the Democrats face and end up discrediting her allegation. At best they'll uncover generic circumstantial evidence such as, "They lived in the same area at the same time." If they do indeed find some actual evidence to suggest that the core details of her accusation are legitimate, then by all means Kavanaugh should withdraw or be voted down. I wouldn't want someone who displayed sociopathic tendencies in high school on the Supreme Court anymore than you do; I just want to see some sort of evidence other than the accuser's testimony (which could be inaccurate in terms of core details) that the allegations are likely to be true, first.

If Kavanaugh suffers a negative consequence from an unsubstantiated allegation, then we have just weaponized them.

And.... just what if it's true?

Then Kavanaugh should withdraw or be voted down. What have I said to make you think I would advocate otherwise?

Does your fear of weaponization take priority over a persons right to name their attacker? Should we silence people over fear of weaponization?

No, just that people need to be prepared to provide evidence to back up their allegations if they want to be believed (and to protect against understandable defamation lawsuits). When the dust settles, and if there is an FBI investigation that fails to produce any useful evidence, I think Mark Judge should file a defamation lawsuit.

Should Terry Crews shut up too?

That's his prerogative. He could be subject to a defamation lawsuit if he can't find a way to back his claims up.

Take note, most people are just asking for time to find out the truth. Since when is taking the time to find out the truth a "negative consequence"?

A negative consequence would be any sort of action that inflicts physical, emotional, reputational, vocational, and/or financial injury on someone.

What would happen if every candidate for political office and every judicial nomination suffered numerous false accusations of rape that cannot be proven true or false?

Could you answer the question please? Are you unable to see how an effective weaponizing of an unsubstantiated allegation could result in the making of false accusations about alleged ancient events could become a common practice in politics?

What would happen if sexual assault victims were forced to keep quiet because nobody ever believed them?

I'm not saying that people should not come forward with allegations and that they should not be investigated, just that they should not be given any sort of punitive effect until after a proper truth-finding process has occurred.

Would that result in a government or political party overrun with sexual predators and a political system that attained a new low?

Indeed it could, which is why people should come forward at the earliest possible time so that proper investigations can be conducted (and not 36 years later when the specter of fabrication for political purposes is at issue).

[–]OnlyGoodRedditorHere 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FruitierGnome -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hindusach0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CarlosRanger 26 points27 points28 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]cranktheguy 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]thamasthedankengine 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LateralThinker13 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]cranktheguy 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thamasthedankengine -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]freddydangerface 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]soalone34 28 points29 points30 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]Hardinator -14 points-13 points-12 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]itsthevoiceman 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]soalone34 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]jmkiii -8 points-7 points-6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]soalone34 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jlevy1126 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]b-aaron 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]LateralThinker13 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fessus_intellectiva 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thamasthedankengine 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]grandmasbroach 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Darkbeshoy 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrRobotsBitch 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fessus_intellectiva 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatOneGuy6381 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ninja_Arena 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hanmhanm 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tyyke1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jasonfunk -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mkrmec -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]maya0nothere -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuietTypeB 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Clemicus 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mcmur 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bigcalvesarein 71 points72 points73 points 7 years ago (66 children) | Copy Link

[–]AThiccMeme 7 years ago* [recovered] (64 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 32 points33 points34 points 7 years ago (56 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoReligionPlz 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]itsthevoiceman 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]i_reckon_not 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xMoody 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SirGoodSnail 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]freddydangerface 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]yvaN_ehT_nioJ 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BoabHonker 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]BoabHonker 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BoabHonker-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Stick you in front of an audience of millions and you'd probably have trouble remembering basic details as well.

not a problem. they would have been WRITTEN DOWN.

not a lelft wing plot my ass. Where was this call for an investigation when Feinstein had the letter??? for 6 weeks. 6 fucking weeks.

see that parts interesting because distinctly remember a period of 6 weeks that this FBI investigation could have been conducted. All of a sudden you want to delay more. get real. This isnt the FBIs jurisdiction. in the words of Biden, it wouldnt have resulted in anything.

And in this case, even assuming Ford's allegation to be true, there's no suggestion of a federal crime, quite apart from the statute of limitations issue. So the FBI has no independent authority to open a criminal investigation. Its only role here would be to re-open the Kavanaugh background investigation. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/can-fbi-investigate-allegation-against-brett-kavanaugh-n911036

Not a plot my ass.

The accusations have been so forcefully made and universally believed by the entire left side of the aisle that it is truly repugnant. For senators like Harris and Feinstein who have met personally with Kavanaugh and share a mission in doing their sworn duty to best serve this nation, it is an utter disgrace for them to completely endorse unfounded accusations that are damning to a man’s very integrity and existence. This is playing politics in the dirtiest fashion.

To believe this was being handled with good faith would insinuate that everyone reserved their judgment until the facts have been laid-out and, most importantly, that the defender can face the accuser and defend himself. That is the very cornerstone of western society. This has certainly not even remotely been the case. The fact that Democrats like Warren have already sent campaign funding emails regarding this series of allegations is evidence enough.

If you want evidence, it has been made pretty clear that the legal defense and representatives for Ford are highly partisan and Democratic affiliates who have a history with the judicial nominee process. And there are plenty of people who want to know who Ford has talked to and if she’s received any financial support from political actors.

But the notion that Democrats have responded appropriately is absolutely preposterous.

[–]BoabHonker-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BoabHonker-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BoabHonker1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BoabHonker1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]scyth3s -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jlevy1126 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

She clearly lied about being scared to fly, so her credibility is shot.

She doesn't like to fly, what was a lie about that? She admitted it, and admitted she does do it for work and vacation. Just like me, I hate to fly, but I do it because it's the only way sometimes to get where I need to be.

Second, doesn't want to come forward but takes a polygraph? Please.

She didn't want her name to be public, but she sent a letter with her name on it in confidence. Her attorneys told her to take a polygraph and the admitted they paid for it, claiming it's routine. Personally I think polygraphs are pseudo science. So I don't think it's useful at all. But I can see why her lawyers would have her take a polygraph.

Third, the witnesses SHE brought forward have all bucked her story. That's massive.

Not sure who you're talking about here. I guess that's possible that someone said they saw what happened but under penalty of perjury would recant.

Fourth, I think she just accused Leland of perjury

I don't think that's what she was implying at all. She said she didn't expect Leland or PJ to remember the party. I'm not sure why she brought up the medical conditions, maybe as a rationalization for why she was trying to distance herself from the situation... I dunno only speculating.

[–]tmone 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]jlevy1126 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

I was shot at in highschool after leaving a party some time around Halloween. I don't remember

Time/date/location of party

Time/date/location any more than it wasn't more than a bike ride from my house and in the evening but not quite dark.

Who was at party

other than a few friends walking home after the party/haunted house (also shot at) no idea who else was there.

Who drove her to party

I don't remember if someone dropped us off or not. I feel like knowing me i wouldn't have walked there only to be sweaty at the party but I don't remember.

Who pushed her into room

How do you identity who pushed you from behind?

Date/who paid for her polygraph

She remembers it was either the day of the funeral or the next day. I think I had Chipotle either Sunday or Monday for dinner but don't remember which off the top of my head. Also her lawyer said they paid, she was told by her lawyer to take one and it's been arranged. Why would she know who paid? She knew she didn't pay and admitted as much.

Grandmother's funeral date?

From what I saw she knew when the funeral was, just not which day she took the polygraph.

But "100% sure" it was Kavanaugh 36 yrs ago

she was staring at his face while he was on top if her. I would think that's one piece you'd have pretty burned into your memory.

She can't remember if she sent the notes to the Washington Post or not?

She said she remembers summarizing the notes but wasn't 100% sure she sent the actual notes. I don't find that difficult to believe that detail is not readily available to her memory during the questionings.

[–]tmone 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

i was stabbed in robbing attempt 17 years ago. i remember everything.

i was first on scene to car accident. saw an old man die in fire. 20 years ago. i remember every little detail.

I'm sorry, but these personal anecdotes are irrelevant.

the thing that gets me every time and that cements my decision is the 6 weeks.

why in the good god world would feinstein and the democrats sit on a sexual assault letter for that long????

You add allllllll this up and its obviously disgustingly political.

when you have fords lawyer on video saying she will resist trump not matter what when he was elected, it makes perfect sense.

The accusations have been so forcefully made and universally believed by the entire left side of the aisle that it is truly repugnant. For senators like Harris and Feinstein who have met personally with Kavanaugh and share a mission in doing their sworn duty to best serve this nation, it is an utter disgrace for them to completely endorse unfounded accusations that are damning to a man’s very integrity and existence. This is playing politics in the dirtiest fashion.

To believe this was being handled with good faith would insinuate that everyone reserved their judgment until the facts have been laid-out and, most importantly, that the defender can face the accuser and defend himself. That is the very cornerstone of western society. This has certainly not even remotely been the case. The fact that Democrats like Warren have already sent campaign funding emails regarding this series of allegations is evidence enough.

If you want evidence, it has been made pretty clear that the legal defense and representatives for Ford are highly partisan and Democratic affiliates who have a history with the judicial nominee process. And there are plenty of people who want to know who Ford has talked to and if she’s received any financial support from political actors.

But the notion that Democrats have responded appropriately is absolutely preposterous.

[–]jlevy1126 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry, but these personal anecdotes are irrelevant.

How so? we just demonstrated that two people can experience something from decades in the past and recall them differently. How is that revelation irrelevant?

the thing that gets me every time and that cements my decision is the 6 weeks.

At the request of Dr. Ford. She didn't want to be put through the ringer. As soon as the info leaked, she consented and here we go for the ride.

The accusations have been so forcefully made and universally believed by the entire left side of the aisle that it is truly repugnant.

I agree that we need more evidence to believe her story. But Kavanaugh has already demonstrated that he is not exactly the most honest and direct person. He's lied in the hearings. Or at the very least misspoke and didn't correct later on.

If I had to choose who to believe in this case, she has to get the benefit of doubt compared to a demonstrated liar. But we need an investigation to confirm. I'm not sure what exactly we'd get from it but it's certainly worth doing and postponing a vote for the SCOTUS.

To believe this was being handled with good faith would insinuate that everyone reserved their judgment until the facts have been laid-out and, most importantly, that the defender can face the accuser and defend himself.

Youre right about judgement, on both sides. The vote should be postponed and the GOP doesn't want to do that and the Democrats are convicting him in the court if public opinion at the very least.

[–]tmone 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

and i just demonstrated how you can remember. the point is moot.

Feinstein litterally blamed Dr. Ford for the leak at the end. Her chair looked increasing uncomfortable throughout the entire hearing.

I thought Kavanaugh could of handled his response to the repeated clutch pearls FBI question by sticking to a one line response of "This is why I am here and its your responsibility". Instead he kept evading differently each time and getting rightfully annoyed. He correctly apologized for his miss step on asking the female senator about being black out drunk (should of asked that zinger to the previous dude lol).

I believe he will be confirmed though and the Democrats are going to completely abandon this tactic going forward as it does not seem to have worked out well for them.

the vote should not be pushed. That was the whole point of the hearing investigation. BUt pushing is exactly why feinstein held on to that letter. clearly they are not interested in the truth or well-being of ford.

i mean, she was never even told to file a police report by anyone. in a state that has no SOL, this seems incredibly irresponsible.

an fbi investigation would uncover nothing. this has been nothing but a sham of a stunt. a disgraceful stunt.

This guy is 100 percent innocent, i strongly believe that.

[–]jlevy11262 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

and i just demonstrated how you can remember. the point is moot.

The point that's it's possible for you to be able to do something that Dr. Ford and I cannot is moot? I don't see you logic here.

Feinstein litterally blamed Dr. Ford for the leak at the end.

No she said it's a possibility that someone she told about what she was doing and the leaked it. She didn't say "litterally" that Dr. Ford leaked it.

I believe he will be confirmed though and the Democrats are going to completely abandon this tactic going forward as it does not seem to have worked out well for them.

What tactic?

i mean, she was never even told to file a police report by anyone. in a state that has no SOL, this seems incredibly irresponsible.

I assume SOL means statute of limitations, if so then Montgomery County, Maryland does have SOL for any charges related to Dr. Ford's claims.

the vote should not be pushed. That was the whole point of the hearing investigation

A hearing without all the witnesses testifying and facing questions, and without any follow-up or investigation into any other allegations? I'm trying to be fair and see your point here but I cannot follow your logic.

This guy is 100 percent innocent, i strongly believe that.

I believe him less than Dr. Ford simply because he has lied to the committee previously. His credibility is lacking in my opinion. However, had he not demonstrated his propensity for misleading I wouldn't know which to believe, and would need an actual investigation before I could determine anything.

[–]tmone1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jlevy11262 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

i believe they are intentionally delaying in hopes of the midterms going their way. after which, they hope to be able to deny any nominee put forward. The amount of stalling that went into this whole thing stinks of politics. Why not talk about and disclose the letter when they were investigating him to begin with???? she knew what she was doing. instead, she waited until they were over. that is insane.

Stall stall stall. delay delay delay. Thats why we had multiple other incredibly weak accusations pop up. its all an effort to push past midterms. Doesn't matter who they picked. Schumer stated before the nomination that they would do whatever it took to derail whoever Trump picked.

add into the account of senate democrats and even fords own lawyer on the record saying they will do anything to resist trump and his SC nom, then you have a pretty good motive to push a very leaky assault charge. Doesn't matter who they picked. Schumer stated before the nomination that they would do whatever it took to derail whoever Trump picked. i mean, come on. people really do not with man on the SC. the rhetoric surrounding him is incredible.

[–]jlevy11262 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jlevy11262 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jlevy11262 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No McConnell hid behind some made up rule for over a year just to oppose a president he didn't like from exercising his constitutional right. Even Sarah Sanders recently said every nominee deserves a vote, McConnell didn't even give that to Obama and Garland.

This is a new (not new, think Anita Hill) the lowest I've seen politics play out

So let's assume it's a tactic. It's already proven to not work. Why do something as dumb again and face even more repercussions now and days with the political divide and alienate people like me. I'm an independent, I get hammered by both sides (look at my comment history lol). I'm very much against radicalism on both sides. But I don't think any if these people are genuinely stupid, and I can't imagine a failed tactic with disastrous results is a option the Dems or GOP would use. That's why McConnell made up a rule, because any other tactic would have been dumb and proven useless. His method at least worked, even if it was BS.

[–]tmone1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jlevy11262 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]digitalpizza1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jlevy1126 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AThiccMeme2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]genkernels 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]genkernels 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm saying that he wasn't proven guilty.

If you look at the facts of the case he was convicted on he said/she said about an event many years ago that almost certainly involved consensual drugged sex. Moreover, the victim's story in that case was physically impossible. She said she received small blue pills that paralyzed her while allowing her to retain consciousness. That is a miracle drug.

Why the conviction? It probably had something to do with prejudicial testimony that other people had been raped -- accusations that had not been investigated with the same scrutiny and definitely not convicted. Like Weinstein, the worst that can be said of Cosby is that he was an asshole. Unlike Weinstein, so far what it seems he has done (drugged sex) wasn't super out of the norm for its time.

So is the argument, anyways. I'm not entirely sure of all of this, which is where you come in.

[–]jlevy1126 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AThiccMeme2 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]jlevy1126 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AThiccMeme1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jlevy1126 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Galtrand 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chernoobyl 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gpl999-14 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ArmaniDiamonds5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]darkrazor87 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CamelCash007 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]rattlesnake87 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CamelCash007 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MahouShoujoLumiPnzr 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]digitalpizza1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thamasthedankengine -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 48 points49 points50 points 7 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 28 points29 points30 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sawses 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]romulusnr 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sawses 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kinoa_loud 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]romulusnr 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MahouShoujoLumiPnzr 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ninja_Arena 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ninja_Arena 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I have no fucking clue why you personally don't see any evidence for their existence....maybe leave the house? Have discussions with people not on the internet?

I have met both in real life and on the internet and I get that it seems one sided these days but it obviously is not. I don't like a lot of the views of apparent feminists and I consider myself one but labels are stupid in the end. Primarily used nowadays so we can quickly (and more importantly, ignorantly) out someone into a "evil" box so we can dismiss their views and not have to accept facts or challenge our own thinking.

YOU ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU LIKELY CLAIM YOU HATE ABOUT THE FEMINISTS AND THEIR EXTREMIST VIEWS.

My best guess, the information you see from searches and forums you visit are all catered to show you mostly the extreme or most controversial views because that what the internet caters to. People want clicks and I think you are biased to only take note of extreme views, likely even not thinking others views get put into the non extreme category because you have already decided what feminism means, therefore non extreme views being posted can't be feminist, therefore you only see extreme feminism ever posted. Rinse wash and repeat and everyone is an extreme feminist to your eyes.

This sub is about men's rights and a significant part of current struggles are related to the opinions of people carrying the feminist flag to spew hate speech towards men. I get that. Their ignorance and hate of gender equality under the law and their SEXISM, despite their claims to be against it, are part of what we are fighting against. We cannot fight against it by exhibiting the same logic and values we find so reprehensible in them.

Ultimately this isn't an us vs them, it's an everyone vs bad ideas/hate/logic all related to tribalism.

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I have no fucking clue why you personally don't see any evidence for their existence....maybe leave the house? Have discussions with people not on the internet?

Assume much?

YOU ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU LIKELY CLAIM YOU HATE ABOUT THE FEMINISTS AND THEIR EXTREMIST VIEWS.

And what, exactly, do you claim that I am doing that you claim I hate about feminist?

This is a very feminist argument however, so I accept that you are a feminist.

My best guess, the information you see from searches and forums you visit are all catered to show you mostly the extreme or most controversial views because that what the internet caters to. People want clicks and I think you are biased to only take note of extreme views, likely even not thinking others views get put into the non extreme category because you have already decided what feminism means, therefore non extreme views being posted can't be feminist, therefore you only see extreme feminism ever posted. Rinse wash and repeat and everyone is an extreme feminist to your eyes.

Tell me more about my life, I think I've been sadly misinformed.

We cannot fight against it by exhibiting the same logic and values we find so reprehensible in them.

Just claiming that this is so falls short of being a compelling argument I'm afraid.

Ultimately this isn't an us vs them

Correct, it's feminism against men.

[–]Ninja_Arena 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

To that first part, not assuming, at least not in a label or ignorance way. You literally don't meet non radical faminists,

I ask very specific questions. I once spent around 5 years asking women about discrimination in the workplace. I don't have a count, but I asked every woman the same questions in the same order, and all said that discrimination in the workplace was wrong, but when I asked them about Affirmative Action and diversity programs discriminating against men in the workplace, to my surprise, 100% of the women supported them. I was expecting more 50%/50%. But my point is you will always get the same PC answer to general questions, but if you dig deeper you will find that they don't advocate as they claim.

So I believe that you may think that you know (or maybe even are a) non-radical feminist, but the devils in the details and I doubt that what you think you know is correct.

Also, I've noticed that few women can't identify even extreme hatred of men when real life examples are presented, I've tried millions of times, and they don't see any problems with it. Hell, most women believed that Lorena Bobbit was the victim.

So I'm not sure there's anything I can say to you that you won't brush off like you already did.

Believe whatever makes you happy, I'll go by my direct experience.

[–]Ninja_Arena 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ninja_Arena 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ninja_Arena1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ninja_Arena1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]freddydangerface 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ninja_Arena 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tacomastr -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tacomastr -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tacomastr 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clemicus 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tacomastr 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clemicus 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Tacomastr 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tacomastr 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BenSwoloP0 45 points46 points47 points 7 years ago* (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sgt-Butter 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (28 children) | Copy Link

[+]BenSwoloP0 -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sgt-Butter 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]BenSwoloP0 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sgt-Butter 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]BenSwoloP0 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Nominated for a lifetime appointment and there is open speculation that Trump’s grip on the presidency is threatened by the special counsel’s investigation. But the high court could avert that threat, and Trump has every reason to believe that his nominee could tip the balance of a closely divided court in his favor. He is under this impression because of a wonderful quote by Kavanaugh:

“I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible. The country wants the President to be ‘one of us’ who bears the same responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office,” argued Kavanaugh in the law-review article. He then asserted that “the indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.”

Kavanaugh is a rigid right-wing ideologue who, if confirmed, would move the court far to the right, which is bad for everyone.

[–]Sgt-Butter -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]BenSwoloP0 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sgt-Butter -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rclouts-3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BoabHonker 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpezIsAChild -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BoabHonker1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpezIsAChild -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]BoabHonker 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpezIsAChild 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]BoabHonker3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpezIsAChild1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BoabHonker3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpezIsAChild0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rclouts-1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]BenSwoloP0 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]rclouts0 points 7 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BenSwoloP03 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rclouts-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yikes dude, you clearly have no idea where I stand politically. Again, you have proven your own prejudices. I have given no indication of how I allign, but because I didn't automatically agree with you, you assumed I'm some far right idiot. I'm not. I just form my own opinions from what I read rather than following everything I hear. That being said, based on what you've said you seem to just follow whatever any left news network says. I typically am socially liberal, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything the media spoon-feeds me. I know you didn't actually look because it's easy to find opposing views. You just need to be mature enough to look for them. Keep proving your ignorance and prejudice.

E: Also the "fake news" people you associated me with have an opinion just as valid as yours and mine. Not accepting that is closed-minded and arrogant.

[–]BenSwoloP02 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rclouts0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No. I'm not avoiding anything. I'm only focused on your inability to accept that people's opinions are worth just as much as yours. I'm not a troll, but you're a child. I suggest getting out more and talking to people who are different from you. You wont learn or grow by staying in your echo chamber. Stop calling people who disagree trolls in an attempt to discredit their opinions. That is a childish debate tactic and is further proof you do not have the capacity or maturity to enter into a discussion.

E: My point is that you cited his voting record as a justification for assuming he's guilty or "a shit eater". Someone's political beliefs have nothing to do with their morality and character. Anyone who believes that hasn't socialized enough. It's disgusting that people think the due process doesn't apply because they don't agree with him. You're fucking sad.

[–]SpikedGIraffe -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electroverted 40 points41 points42 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomowudi 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes, men have had their lives ruined by false accusations.

Yes, this is unacceptable.

But not every dude that is famous and accused is "Nelson Mandela".

Brett Kavanaugh, from the evidence we've seen thus far, should be investigated.

You know what would actually help reduce incidents of false accusations? Better ways of prosecuting actual rapes.

I've brought this up to Feminists before, and while they will often stick to their cultural paradigms, they don't exactly disagree either.

So... I'd be very curious what MRA's think:

https://medium.com/@tomo.albanese/why-feminism-is-broken-and-harming-innocent-women-45535dcc721f

I'll cut and paste the relevant points here:

Rape — The overstatements made by feminists which claim that all men are rapists, and even the seemingly kinder statements which say that rape is condoned by society (rape culture) gets in the way of the real issue. The real issue is that rapists, like serial killers and professional con men are simply criminals who are very good at not getting caught. Like fraud, rape is also a crime which is under-reported because it engenders feelings of shame in its victims. Also, like fraud and some murder cases, there is little evidence that a crime was even committed. This makes it difficult to pursue and convict these criminals, if the crime even gets reported in the first place.Instead of focusing on telling men not to rape women — which honestly most men already know — we should be educating young men and women on how to communicate with each other more effectively. We should be working to demystify the opposite sex so that young men and women can start to relate to each other like people instead of confrontationally.
We also need to get better at catching rapists, keeping track of patterns of behavior in those accused, and making victims feel comfortable in reporting these crimes. “Victim blaming” is often just reasonable skepticism involving a crime that is difficult to prosecute. It happens in fraud and murder, but that doesn’t mean that the way it happens with rape doesn’t need to be dealt with more sensitively. But attacking folks for reasonable doubt is far different from explaining to them how they could use more tact.
Until we start doing these things, the rape epidemic will continue its gradual decline — because it is in decline. However, making rape harder to define, pretending that men don’t get raped, and focusing on buzz campaigns which ignore the victim-victimizer dyad is just making it harder to protect EVERYONE from the predators that are actually running around like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, raping people that they know.

[–]Clemicus 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

No, that's untrue, what you stated there will not decrease false rape accusations and depending on how they're dealt with, it may decrease legitimate cases. That will not affect false allegations in anyway.

There needs to be an explanation of what will happen during rape investigations. The biggest issue are those who make all these claims about how the Police won't take the case seriously, that it won't be investigated properly, and that a tiny minority who do will then go onto court where there's a 40-45% of the suspect being found guilty for specific offences (depending on offence)

When you report it to the Police, as much evidence needs to be supplied so firstly, a suspect can be identified, and secondly, so there's a greater chance of a successful prosecution. The biggest issue being the trauma of reliving those memories.

It's easy to state an improvement is needed. However, it's difficult to almost impossible to come up with ANOTHER method.

So based on that. What would you suggest be the best method for dealing and prosecuting rape cases?

[–]tomowudi 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok... so I feel like I may have addressed that, but let me unpack this a bit more, because I might not have explicitly stated this.

Rape is a difficult to prosecute crime because by nature, there is little actual evidence to go off of.

1) Physical evidence is not proof that consent has been withheld or withdrawn 2) It is unlikely that there are eyewitnesses, especially in instances where consent has been withdrawn 3) From a legal perspective, the accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty. 4) Attacks on the credibility of the victim are smart, legal strategies which deal less with proof and more with reasonable doubt. This is similar to the idea that a decent prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich - when all you need is to prove that something is POSSIBLE, that's a hell of lot easier to prove than that something is PROBABLE.

So, short of the act being accidentally caught on film by a third party, an eye witness, or an admission of guilt... there is no definitive evidence that can be supplied to prosecute ANY rape.

To make the legal case, you need a preponderance of evidence for both motive and opportunity, or at least evidence which directly contradicts the accused's account (which demonstrates that they are lying which leaves only one uncontradicted account for the court to rule on).

This doesn't even touch the societal circumstances, such as it being under-reported, dismissed, officers not being properly trained to deal with victims, etc. All of THAT mess is besides the point.

Because the only way to increase the likelihood that the necessary preponderance of evidence will be met is by establishing patterns of behavior. That's what got Cosby. That's what got Weinstein. That's about the only thing that will get anyone with an excellent lawyer. One accusation in a situation that is essentially he-said-she-said is very different from 5 independently corroborated accusations that establish a specific modus operandi.

So, in my view, the sex crimes division should operate similar to how fraud divisions operate... which is closer to how organized crime is investigated and prosecuted. It's all about the long-game, rather than the short game. It's not about proving that this person committed this crime on this date.

It's about proving that this person operates in a predatory manner which can only be explained as an intent to obscure their true intentions regarding a specific type or types of criminal activity.

Organized Crime suspects, fraudsters (pretty organized), and rapists (predatory and organized), serial killers (organized ones like Bundy or Zodiac)... all those groups engage in patterns of behavior. They get caught and convicted because of those patterns, not because of the specifics of each crime.

You start being able to boast about how NOT scary it is for victims to report crimes, about how often those victims get justice (ignoring how long it may take), and all of a sudden no matter what the culture is, what gets rapists caught is the PATTERN that rapists engage in rather than how good the victim's lawyer is.

[–]Jrobalmighty 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]goodmod[M] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alleyria-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hirudin1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alleyria-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hirudin1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alleyria-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hirudin2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alleyria-1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hirudin1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rattlesnake87 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LateraLincisor 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alleyria 34 points35 points36 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We're not much different than before.

Ford alleges under oath a sexual assault by Kavanaugh with assistance from Judge. Kavanaugh denies under oath Judge denies under oath Two other alleged attendees deny the overall scenario of the party as described under oath. This includes Ford's good friend at the time, Leland. Ford can remember some details about the period of time she was inside the house "clearly" and fails to remember other details. She can't actually remember how many people were there. She can't remember if Kavanaugh and Judge arrived before or after she did, but alleges that Kavanaugh was already drunk before he arrived. She can remember almost nothing about the hours immediately before arriving or immediately after leaving, including who may have driven her to and from the location. But she doesn't describe anyone else leaving with her.

She distinctly remembers greeting Judge ("hello") at a grocer 6-8 weeks after being assaulted and traumatized for life by Kavanaugh and Judge. At the time she saw and said hello to Judge, she was alone, having wanted to enter the grocer through a different door than her parent. She didn't describe Judge approaching her, instead she is the one who initiated contact with him.

She can't remember basic facts about some events in the past two months, including whether a polygraph was the same day or a different day than a funeral for her grandmother, and whether or not she shared her therapy notes with a WaPo reporter.

The questioner established minor inconsistencies in her previous statements, among those the number of attendees, and timing of the incident.

All tolled there are no new facts that support an allegation of sexual assault by Kavanaugh and no new facts that refute it. And there's not much here that you could follow up on since, for example, Ford can't provide the name of the person(s) who drove her to and from the party.

[–]LateralThinker13 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alleyria 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]foot_kisser -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]puppehplicity -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]valleycupcake 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KingRodent 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

We're not much different than before.

Ford alleges under oath a sexual assault by Kavanaugh with assistance from Judge. Kavanaugh denies under oath Judge denies under oath Two other alleged attendees deny the overall scenario of the party as described under oath. This includes Ford's good friend at the time, Leland. Ford can remember some details about the period of time she was inside the house "clearly" and fails to remember other details. She can't actually remember how many people were there. She can't remember if Kavanaugh and Judge arrived before or after she did, but alleges that Kavanaugh was already drunk before he arrived. She can remember almost nothing about the hours immediately before arriving or immediately after leaving, including who may have driven her to and from the location. But she doesn't describe anyone else leaving with her.

She distinctly remembers greeting Judge ("hello") at a grocer 6-8 weeks after being assaulted and traumatized for life by Kavanaugh and Judge. At the time she saw and said hello to Judge, she was alone, having wanted to enter the grocer through a different door than her parent. She didn't describe Judge approaching her, instead she is the one who initiated contact with him.

She can't remember basic facts about some events in the past two months, including whether a polygraph was the same day or a different day than a funeral for her grandmother, and whether or not she shared her therapy notes with a WaPo reporter.

The questioner established minor inconsistencies in her previous statements, among those the number of attendees, and timing of the incident.

All tolled there are no new facts that support an allegation of sexual assault by Kavanaugh and no new facts that refute it. And there's not much here that you could follow up on since, for example, Ford can't provide the name of the person(s) who drove her to and from the party.

[+]IceVest -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]IceVest -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]IceVest 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IceVest -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]IceVest-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OddlySpecificReferen 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

So I say this as someone who vehemently argues that men's issues aren't taken seriously enough and that it's a big problem in the US... But Brett Kavanaugh isn't on fucking trial. He's nominated to be a supreme Court Justice. He's being interviewed for a job. If you were interviewing someone for a job and multiple people told you that he sexually assaulted them and one of their claims was confirmed by another dude saying he helped in one of the alleged assaults, then you ask the guy about his past he says he didn't drink at all or have sex and then a bunch of people he knows say that's bullshit... Wouldn't you at the very least take that into consideration? Dude shouldn't just be put in jail based on heresay, but he damn well doesn't belong on the supreme Court as a proven liar who doesn't represent the views of even the majority of his party let alone the American people as a whole...

[–]Numerous1 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]OddlySpecificReferen 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Numerous1 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I confess, I’m not paying as close attention to this as I should, but hasn’t there only been verbal testimony? I know that a court of law will believe testimony, that not every conviction occurs without other proof, but so far I think it’s just been ‘oh, this happened’ without anything else.

People always bring up the ‘why did you wait so long to accuse’ argument but I get that also. Some people in these types of cases may have not wanted to say anything because of the media circus but decided that SC seat is too big of a deal and that they have a responsibility to act.

Idk. If the entire thing turns out to be false then he shouldn’t be punished for it by not getting the position. On the other hand, I’m all for an investigation, a person (now persons) has accused you of a crime? It’s responsibility of the government to investigate

[–]OddlySpecificReferen 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Numerous1 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gamer_Jack_Gameson 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link

[–]rattlesnake87 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gamer_Jack_Gameson 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]rattlesnake87 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gamer_Jack_Gameson 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'd be glad to. This is a process apart from everything else. It is a unique situation. It doesn't set a dangerous precedent because the only set of circumstances it applies to is a supreme court nomination. I'm not advocating for taking the accuser's word for it in other areas. I wouldn't be a believer in men's rights if I thought that. I don't believe this standard applies to any other party, not even to the president. The president only serves for, at most, 8 years. If we make a mistake and elect a rapist for president, there are precedents and procedures in place to correct that. The Supreme Court is a life-time appointment as a matter of law, and the only recourse is impeachment. I'm not aware of that ever happening.

My argument is that this is a unique situation that does NOT apply to anyone else, and it doesn't set a precedent for guilty til proven innocent. In my opinion, it is ok to throw him out on the basis of a credible accusation alone, on the grounds that (a) this is a life-time appointment, (b) this is a person who is arguably more powerful than the president once confirmed, and (c) there are other people who are qualified for the job that don't have accusations against them.

[–]rattlesnake87 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gamer_Jack_Gameson 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]rattlesnake87 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gamer_Jack_Gameson 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rattlesnake87 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

This accuser against Kavanaugh sounds legitimate.

Based on what?

Her story has the smack of truth to it.

That boys lined up outside bedrooms waiting to take their turn to "train gang rape" drunk college girls? No it doesn't. That's nonsense.

A supreme court nomination isn't the same thing as a criminal trial. The mere possibility of it being true is and SHOULD BE enough to stop someone from being confirmed to the most powerful governing body of the most powerful nation for life.

No it should not. That's ridiculous.

If that were the case, then no one should be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Every single time someone gets close, another person from the other side can just say whatever they want. "He touched me!! 36 years ago!! He shouldn't be on the Supreme Court!!"

I have doubts about some of the accusations, but the first one sounds legit.

They always do this. Always. This is how they build a false accusation. This is how they build credibility. Somewhere in your mind you can't get past the idea that, "well... There are many women, therefore there must be some truth to it."

No. False. Wrong. Take each one separate from the other. In fact, I would even argue women would be more likely to exaggerate an event in order to support her "sisters".

I fell for this once with the Jian Ghomeshi Hoax. I will never fall for it again.

Don't fall for it either. These allegations are entirely political. This is a sinister plot. It must be dismissed. He must be confirmed.

If he is not, there will be some serious consequences. For both sides. It could descend into civil war.

I'm being very serious here. People should not lose their life's work because of an unclear allegation that has been coaxed out of a suggestible individual from 36 years ago.

No. That is not how society should work. No.

[–]Gamer_Jack_Gameson 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gamer_Jack_Gameson -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gamer_Jack_Gameson 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes I do. I believe a man's life shouldn't be destroyed by mere accusations. This is different. The entire country and even the entire world will be affected by this confirmation process. It's not just Kavanaugh's life and fortune and stake. This isn't the hill to do battle on over the right's of the accused. This situation eclipses all others, and the rules are different. If there is a credible accusation against this man--even without hard evidence--then his confirmation should be denied. There are other qualified judges. There is no reason to take a risk on this guy when the stakes are so high. If you are listening with an objective and open mind, and have ever been in a situation like this before (as a friend or loved one), then you will hear Ford's testimony and think she sounds credible. She doesn't seem to be making this up.

[–]Lupinfujiko 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes I do. I believe a man's life shouldn't be destroyed by mere accusations.

I agree.

This is different.

Why?

The entire country and even the entire world will be affected by this confirmation process.

By all accounts, he's a very competent and fair individual.

It's not just Kavanaugh's life and fortune and stake. This isn't the hill to do battle on over the right's of the accused.

I disagree. This is absolutely that hill.

If he goes down, we have effectively displayed that MeToo can be weaponized.

Not only does this mean anyone is now vulnerable. It cheapens the entire movement and anyone who has actually experienced sexual violence.

This situation eclipses all others, and the rules are different.

You are asking us to make the rules different.

I'm going to start with one fundamental rule: Innocent until proven guilty.

If there is a credible accusation against this man--even without hard evidence--then his confirmation should be denied.

Define "credible".

"Without hard evidence". Now you are suggesting that an individual is guilty until proven innocent. This is fundamentally wrong.

There are other qualified judges.

Well that's true. Maybe that's what will happen.

What if another qualified judge gets nominated, and faces similar allegations?

What then? Do we keep going? What if nobody turns out to be perfect?

If you are listening with an objective and open mind, and have ever been in a situation like this before (as a friend or loved one), then you will hear Ford's testimony and think she sounds credible. She doesn't seem to be making this up.

Oh, I am using an objective mind.

Did you ever hear Lucy DeCouture tell her story on CBC leading up to the Jian Ghomeshi Trial?

I remember hearing that and thinking, "damn... She must be telling the truth. It sounds so authentic."

It took more than a year later, and her under oath. It turns out she was lying.

Just because someone seems sincere and genuine, doesn't mean they are.

There are also mistaken memories, suggested memories, and mistaken identity to consider.

Meanwhile, did you hear him speak? He flat out denies it ever happened. And he sounds sincere too.

Here's a question: Why do you err on the side of believing the woman, but not the man?

Does this belie a certain bias in you?

[–]Gamer_Jack_Gameson 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm listening to kavanaugh defend himself as I write this.

Me too. I'm shaking. This is very upsetting.

He also sounds credible. Its hard to know. I think that with the stakes so high, without proof from either side and both sides sound credible, then the judge should not be confirmed.

No. Burden of proof falls on the positive claim. You simply cannot disprove a negative.

There is too much at stake.

Yes, you're right.

The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is a fundamental bedrock principle of our legal system. If we remove this, we have failed as a society.

This doesn't happen often, so why him?

Excuse me?

This happens all the time. This is exactly what we've been talking about for the past decade. This is why there's a Men's Rights Movement. This is why there is a mensrights subreddit. This is why we are taking a stand here.

Where have you been? What do you mean, "this doesn't happen often"? Wrong. False. Incorrect. It happens all the time.

And why him? Because he's a pro lifer Republican. Let's say it exactly as it is.

Out of all the potential ways this could be weaponized, why isn't it?

It is! All the time! There are dozens, if not thousands of examples in this very subreddit.

I have a hard time believing that people willing to make false accusations would be so rare if it were such an effective tactic.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Sorry. Time to wake up.

I don't mean that as a reproche to you personally. Most people aren't paying attention.

This is why we have a men's rights movement. This is what we've been talking about for years. We consistently and viciously get attacked regularly by feminist groups, the media, and the general public. We almost always get marginalized and ridiculised when we bring our issues to the table. We almost always get ignored.

Yeah, dude. It happens. Newsflash: It happens.

[+]1308917 -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]LateralThinker13 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]1308917 -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]1308917 -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AkumaZ 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]AkumaZ -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]AkumaZ -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]AkumaZ 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

I dunno, an investigation would be nice

No the FBI background checks Kavanaugh has had up to this point are not sufficient, if they didn’t talk to anyone that would mention anything like that it would never appear on their radar. Having been apart of someone’s federal background check they aren’t interviewing obscure acquaintances without cause so this would allow them to ask specific people specific questions and ascertain more of what is true

Especially given the latest accusation is coming from someone who themselves has passed a background and had security clearance. Their recollection and claim is much more detailed, which makes it more investigable and verifiable.

To be clear, I believe Kavanaugh believes what he said, that does not mean this didn’t happen, he could very well have been blackout drunk and simply doesn’t remember it happening. He could also be a good actor or have been coached up on this (the same could be said of Dr. Ford). However I also believe Kavanaugh has established a pattern of small and bigger lies throughout his nomination that at this point gives him less credibility in regards to the truth than Dr Ford

[–]Lupinfujiko 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

I dunno, an investigation would be nice

They have sworn statements from all the involved parties.

An FBI investigation isn't binding. Ultimately, it is still up to the judiciary committee to make the confirmation.

The issue is, an FBI investigation might take up to a year. It might take until after the next federal election. The Democrats know this, this is why they keep using this cheap tactic as their rallying point.

No the FBI background checks Kavanaugh has had up to this point are not sufficient,

Why not?

He's had dozens of interviews. Including with the judiciary committee. He's had a one on one session with Senator Feinstein herself. She knew about but didn't ask any questions about it.

This process has been happening for months. The Democrats had six weeks to ask questions. They've examined every part of this guy's life in the past 30 years. Nothing comes even close to these whoppers of allegations.

It's rich of the Democrats to now be driving for an FBI investigation right now. Why didn't they call for one six weeks ago? Why didn't they ask questions to Kavanaugh directly during the confirmation process?

Why didn't they keep it discreet as were the wishes of both Kavanagh and Ford? Instead of turning it into this media circus.

Furthermore, an FBI investigation won't get us anywhere closer to the truth. If anything, it will just open up more questions

Would people even accept an FBI investigation that stated nothing happened?

Jian Ghomeshi was acquitted. No one actually cares about that. They still believe he did it. Even after all the evidence, even after showing the women lied. People still think he did it.

So what are the Democrats really asking for here?

They simply want to delay the process, and hope it drags on until the next election.

if they didn’t talk to anyone that would mention anything like that it would never appear on their radar.

The committee has sworn statements from everyone named who was involved. Even Ford's friend "Leiland" claims she was never at such a party.

However I also believe Kavanaugh has established a pattern of small and bigger lies throughout his nomination that at this point gives him less credibility in regards to the truth than Dr Ford

Kavanaugh has "established a pattern of small and bigger lies"?

What are you talking about? He has been a paragon of truthful and accurate statements. What are you even referring to here?

Dr. Ford has changed and rechanged her statements several times. Maybe that is to be expected from a sexual trauma.

But if anyone has "established a pattern", it is most certainly Dr. Ford. Not Kavanaugh. I'm not even sure why you would say that.

Actually, I do know why you would say that. Humans are naturally inclined to believe women more than men. This is partly because of the empathy gap.

I've just uncovered one of your biases. Why did you assume he had "established a pattern of lies"? He hasn't lied once during this process.

[–]AkumaZ1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don’t believe a sworn statement is enough, if it is then Swetniks accusation would be taken more seriously

FBI background would allow everyone to be interviewed by professionals to at least gather info. The initial background and even all his previous ones are not sufficient if there was not until this point a reference to such behavior. The FBI isn’t some supernaturally powered organization that uncovers every stone and person in your life’s history, they operate under what knowledge they have at the time. Most of the time they’ll interview a list of references that YOU provide and maybe canvas your neighbors, they’re not talking to someone you met at a party in high school just because

Thomas’ reopened background took like 2 days following Anita Hills accusation so your point about delaying this for a long time is ridiculous. And Kavanaugh absolutely deflected every question as to why he would or wouldn’t want an investigation “I’m game for whatever the committee wants” is not a yes or no, particularly when the majority is very keen on pushing him through as fast as possible and with as little information as is possible

Paragon of truth?

Trump has considered and talked to more people in history for this nomination?

None of his statements regarding his stance on Roe when asked are inconsistent with past statements or his published works?

Several of the things he was asked about during his time working for the Bush administration turned out to be deliberately misleading at best and at worst perjuring (either at the time it occurred when he was asked or now) once the documents that were withheld for no good reason were finally released. Specifically the incident regarding stolen emails comes to mind

Devil’s Triangle is a drinking game?

Boofing is farting?

Calling yourself an Alumnus of a woman is a reference to simply friendship?

As a regular drinker, sometimes to excess he has NEVER had a lapse in memory of any kind?

Also as a regular drinker he has no idea what too many beers is?

And if you’re willing to lie about the little easy things, your willing to lie about big things

This is what I mean, on Fords side where has she been caught in a demonstrable lie under oath? An easily provable lie. I would not consider her changing statements lies personally, as you said trauma can affect things and she has already admitted that her memory regarding certain timing deals is not there. Whether or not you buy her story is one thing, but unless I missed a blatant lie under oath, so she’s still a bit more credible when under oath.

Kavanaugh has not done a fabulous job of being truthful. Although I think he does perhaps believe that he did not do this, it doesn’t mean this didn’t happen

Further his temper and outbursts, although understandable to some extent given the charges, does not make him seem to be a particularly good person for the highest court in the nation

[–]Lupinfujiko1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

With all due respect, you are performing a great deal of mental gymnastics here.

Kavanaugh absolutely deflected every question

No, he did not. There were some incredibly silly questions, that's for sure.

as to why he would or wouldn’t want an investigation “I’m game for whatever the committee wants” is not a yes or no,

No, it's not a yes or no.

He's the defendent. It doesn't matter if he gives a yes or no. Nor should that even be a question.

It isn't up to him what the committee decides.

His answer is literally the only possible answer to a non-question.

It's like being at a police investigation, and the police ask you, "would you like a police investigation?"

I'm not the police here. This isn't my decision to make. That's your job. Not mine. What kind of a question is that?

It's a partisan question. That's exactly what it is.

particularly when the majority is very keen on pushing him through as fast as possible and with as little information as is possible

That's what the Democrats are feigning here.

That's nonsense. They've sat on this letter for over six weeks now. They had more than enough time to trigger an investigation.

In fact, they had ample opportunities to question Kavanaugh and others about it themselves.

In fact, Senator Feinstein herself had several interviews and exchanges with Kavanaugh in which she mentioned of questioned nothing.

As fast as possible? Sitting on a letter for six weeks?

It's rich of the Democrats to insinuate the committee wants to move "as fast as possible". It's also total nonsense if you look at their actions.

Paragon of truth?

Trump has considered and talked to more people in history for this nomination?

Yes. From what I understand.

None of his statements regarding his stance on Roe when asked are inconsistent with past statements or his published works?

Ah. So this comes back to abortion.

Why don't the Democrats just come out and say it? "We're worried about abortion rights. That's why we want to block."

Instead of this farcical media charade?

What exactly did he say that you don't believe?

Several of the things he was asked about during his time working for the Bush administration turned out to be deliberately misleading at best and at worst perjuring (either at the time it occurred when he was asked or now) once the documents that were withheld for no good reason were finally released. Specifically the incident regarding stolen emails comes to mind

For example?

Devil’s Triangle is a drinking game?

How's that a lie??

Boofing is farting?

How's that a lie??

Calling yourself an Alumnus of a woman is a reference to simply friendship?

Is it not?? Define "friend".

As a regular drinker, sometimes to excess he has NEVER had a lapse in memory of any kind?

Neither have I. Am I also lying?

Also as a regular drinker he has no idea what too many beers is?

Do you? How many are "too many beers"?

And if you’re willing to lie about the little easy things, your willing to lie about big things

Those weren't lies.

Those were stupid questions asked by nefarious shitheads.

That yearbook "evidence" is a joke. It's an absolute joke. Are you suggesting he put cryptic messages about rape in his yearbook address? And that's the evidence you're going with?

It's beyond pathetic. It's absurd beyond all meaning. No. Just, no. Stop this nonsense.

If you're worried about Roe Wade then just say it. Please.

I'm saying that to all Democrats or the people who are still somehow supporting this nonsense. Just say you're worried about abortion rights, and let's talk about that.

The rest of this is complete garbage. Come on. Let us now be truthful. If your best evidence is "Devil's Triangle" from a yearbook statement from 36 years ago. You're fucked. Sorry. That's not evidence. That's grasping at like wind. It isn't even grasping at straws, that's how silly this is.

Can we get back to reality please? I feel like society has gone completely mad.

[–]AkumaZ2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yea i'm thinkin neither of us are going to convince the other of anything here, just different premises we're operating on, you think i'm performing mental gymnastics and honestly I think you're being intellectually dishonest

To be clear, the yearbook evidence and questions and the thing i've pointed out are not evidence of what he is being accused, however his handling of those questions to me establishes a pattern of dishonesty

Here is one example of him being deliberately misleading or potentially perjuring himself earlier in the hearing https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/17/did-brett-kavanaugh-give-false-testimony-under-oath/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3dd59e95d099

Here's the something covering the stolen emails I mentioned

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/20/brett-kavanaughs-unlikely-story-about-democrats-stolen-documents/?utm_term=.913cc88045e2

Him wanting or calling for an investigation is an assertion of innocence, I do not understand why he would be against something like that as it would put to rest this bullshit.

Devil's triangle is not a drinking game, please find me a reference other than Kavanaugh's assertion that it is showing otherwise if you can, I haven't found it from my searching. It pretty much always refers to a MMF threesome

Boofing is not farting in any use that i've seen or looked up, although it does refer to anal activities its more about things going in than out

You drink to excess but cant say what too many beers are? I can say for certain what's too many for me. Everyone is different sure, but the answer being the BAC chart was ridiculous

Calling yourself an alumnus of a woman absolutely sounds like sexual conquest, whether or not he is exaggerating that it happened or not, i've never heard anyone say they "graduated" a person that simply a friend of the group. Maybe things were different in the 80s, i'm guessing not that different though

So yes, i'm saying his answers to these questions are lies

You're also literally taking my statements out of context from the get go, didnt say he deflected every question period, just the ones regarding wanting an FBI investigation

Regarding Roe, thats really only a part of the problem. Gorsuch would likely be into overturning it, as would a multitude of potential nominees that made the same Federalist Society list that Kavanaugh made. But you did not see this kind of thing with Gorsuch and you probably would not see it with another nominee

All the time i got this morning, sorry couldn't get to how Feinstein managed the letter. Although I can agree it wasn't handled in the best way the timeline in which things happened, along with Fords identity being leaked (not by democrats if I understand correctly) does make it seem less like a ridiculous smear campaign than is being characterized

[–]Lupinfujiko1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AkumaZ2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There’s no cryptic meaning to Devil’s Triangle and boofing, and there’s misunderstanding or misinterpreting of him being misleading/lying in his past

What does "Devil's Triangle" and "Boofing" mean then?

It's a fucking yearbook comment from 36 years ago. Don't be ridiculous.

It was also reported that he did in fact watch Fords testimony after claiming he did not, either bad reporting or again another lie

What? Where?

Regardless, he comes off as a liar

No he most certainly does not. That line of reasoning needs to be eliminated immediately. That's false. He came across as very sincere, passionate.

Did you actually watch the hearing? Or are you reading what the media has been saying about it?

his outbursts are borderline childish

Pardon me?

Ah, no. There was nothing "childish". Not in the least.

This is a person who is being accused of a "train gang rape" and is facing down 22 Judiciary Committee Senators.

If he didn't show a little bit of emotion, that would be something to consider.

Again, did you actually watch it?

Yes, he's upset. Should he not be? He's completely right this is a farcical media circus. He's right the timing of it is "unfortunate" at best. He's right there is a coordinated effort to defame him. And of course he's angry about it. Wouldn't you be?

The only thing "childish" in that hearing were the Democrats. Asking ridiculous questions and grandstanding. Attempting to make the point, "Look! He doesn't want an FBI investigation! He's guilty!!" when they know right well that isn't his decision, and that question is completely baseless and ridiculous at best. At best.

Again there were several just as qualified nominee choices holding essentially the same stances and would vote the exact same way that would not have had this circus

Are you actually attempting to blame this circus on him?

Come on. Come ON. Ah, the Democrats. The Democrats are 100% responsible for this media circus. That isn't up for debate at this point. Even Democrats agree with that.

[–]AkumaZ2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What does "Devil's Triangle" and "Boofing" mean then?

It's a fucking yearbook comment from 36 years ago. Don't be ridiculous.

I've already answered this, are you even reading my posts? Again, its not even about the content of it, he was point blank asked what these meant and he gave horseshit answers

What? Where?

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/kavanaugh/card/1538060501?ns=prod/accounts-wsj

Reported by an aide, contradicted by Kavanaugh's opening statement

Did you actually watch the hearing? Or are you reading what the media has been saying about it?

Did you? Because you aren't even reading my posts entirely before you respond

The only thing "childish" in that hearing were the Democrats. Asking ridiculous questions and grandstanding. Attempting to make the point, "Look! He doesn't want an FBI investigation! He's guilty!!" when they know right well that isn't his decision, and that question is completely baseless and ridiculous at best. At best.

Whataboutism but Al Franken immediately called for an investigation when he was accused. The question is not at all baseless, an innocent man's best friend is the truth, while an investigation may not definitively provide it, it does provide more evidence to be considered. Someone from Vox made the comparison to an MRI. An MRI does not draw conclusions or make definitive statements, the doctors who look at it do. His unwillingness to answer that straight to me is confusing. No one said he was guilty with that question, they even said the same thing "if you are innocent this will help prove that"

Ultimately? Not his decision sure, but if he calls for one that could very well influence the person who's call it is to do so (Trump)

If he didn't show a little bit of emotion, that would be something to consider.

He didn't show just a little bit of emotion, but his composure was not great. Personally I can understand it, i'd probably be losing my shit in his position as well, but I'd also like to imagine a supreme court judge would be more composed than I. Other politicians have been grilled in hearings for longer periods of time about negative things and not flown off the handle as much as he did. And I guarantee if someone acted like he did IN HIS OWN COURT, regardless of situation or charge, Kavanaugh would not have stood for it.

Are you actually attempting to blame this circus on him?

Come on. Come ON. Ah, the Democrats. The Democrats are 100% responsible for this media circus. That isn't up for debate at this point. Even Democrats agree with that.

Actually i'm blaming the people that selected him, but in a tertiary way perhaps. Once again, THIS DID NOT HAPPEN with Gorsuch. And no this is not 100% on the Democrats, this hearing and its format was decided by the majority was it not? It went forward with no call for investigation that would have informed the hearing with more evidence. 5 minute allotments for questioning? That's not how an investigation works, and Kavanaugh and the senators said multiple times that "this is the investigation" and that's patently false.

This definitely turned partisan though, and I don't think it should have. I also don't think Kavanaugh should have made it more partisan with his statements "Clinton revenge" A supreme court judge should be above party bullshit. Call balls and strikes right?

Regardless, this is a useless discussion. You're coming at this from the MensRights side of things and I respect where you're coming from, however I think because of that you're taking Kavanaugh and his answers entirely at face value. Anyway looks like a "limited investigation" is being approved now, so maybe this can be settled either way, or at the very least to a sufficient degree to go forward without bitching on either side

[–]Lupinfujiko1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I've already answered this, are you even reading my posts?

I am reading your posts, and no you have not answered it. You questioned his meaning of it, but you have not offered an alternative meaning.

Again, its not even about the content of it, he was point blank asked what these meant and he gave horseshit answers

Again, what makes you think they were "horseshit"?

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/kavanaugh/card/1538060501?ns=prod/accounts-wsj

Oh... Was it on a "monitor" in the corner of a room where he happened to be sitting?

The meaning of the question was, "did you watch and digest the testimony?"

It wasn't, "were there any screens somewhere in your vicinity where you were sitting?"

Reported by an aide, contradicted by Kavanaugh's opening statement

On a website called WSJ btw. I'm wondering which side they advocate for. Hmmm...

Did you actually watch the hearing? Or are you reading what the media has been saying about it?

Did you? Because you aren't even reading my posts entirely before you respond

I notice that you didn't answer the question.

I would recommend you go back and watch both testimonies yourself.

And yes, I have been reading what you wrote.

He didn't show just a little bit of emotion, but his composure was not great.

His composure was fantastic.

The only people saying otherwise are people who didn't watch it, and the dishonest media.

This definitely turned partisan though, and I don't think it should have. I also don't think Kavanaugh should have made it more partisan with his statements "Clinton revenge" A supreme court judge should be above party bullshit. Call balls and strikes right?

I'm really glad he did. Because he is exactly correct.

It's time to step sidestepping this nonsense. When there is backroom cronyism happening in our Senate Committee, I'm glad someone actually had the balls to go ahead and say it as it is.

If this weren't a media circus, and if Democrats really cared about the truth, they would have called for an investigation weeks ago. Or better yet, they would have asked Kavanaugh about it themselves when they had the chance.

They sure wouldn't have taken it to the press mere days before his confirmation.

I think because of that you're taking Kavanaugh and his answers entirely at face value.

Why wouldn't I?

We're taking Dr. Ford's at face value. Why shouldn't we take Brett Kavanaugh's at face value?

Ford has changed her story several times. She's changed the numbers of people involved. She changed the events leading up to it and after. Her description of her escape made zero sense. How she got home made zero sense. So much of her testimony is brutally full of holes. Yet, here we all are, saying, "well, we have to believe her."

You're scrutinizing every single thing Kavanaugh said. You are legitimizing every thing Ford said, even it it makes no sense.

Anyway looks like a "limited investigation" is being approved now, so maybe this can be settled either way, or at the very least to a sufficient degree to go forward without bitching on either side.

You know what's going to happen here, right?

He will be exonerated. But public opinion won't accept it. WSJ or whatever that website is will find "holes" in the investigation. The investigators will themselves face an attack on credibility. Democrats will not accept the results and will call for further delays and more investigations.

Do you want to put money on it?

[–]grlc52 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Apropo Starr's wellknown backroom crony leaker.

At least some honesty. Do you believe this is about revenge?

Because frankly that sickens me.

Besides, Clinton actually did it.

This entire thing is a farce. Special K is absolutely innapropriate as a SCJ given his partisan hackery. He can't even maintain a pretense of impartiality.

What are you basing this on?

Everyone knows he's innapropriate. I don't care even slightly about any of these charges. He is simply absolutely unfit for this position.

What are you basing this on?

If you watched him and ford testify and came to any other conclusion, I'm astonished. An impartial judiciary should be the standard. Do you disagree?

I watched both testimonies very carefully. I thought he did an outstanding job. Under the tremendous amount of pressure he's under. Under everything that's just happened to him and his family.

He was passionate, he was clear, and he was right. Everything the Democrats and the media are doing to him right now is downright shameful. They've turned this into a circus.

He probably was being partisan. Because frankly, the Republicans are the only ones right now exhibiting any sort of grace. The Democrats have embarrassed themselves. They've embarrassed the nation and the entire process with this farcical charade.

They should go home and hang their heads in shame.

As for whether or not he's qualified. That's up to the committee to decide. I'm not a standing Judiciary Committee Senator. Neither are you. We have no idea what "qualified" means.

If he's made it this far, I'm sure he's qualified.

He sure acted admirably during the hearing. I was thoroughly impressed.

The media reports claiming otherwise are being completely dishonest. They are attempting to derail his performance and they are trying to discredit his reputation.

If you ever needed proof the media and the Democrats are in cahoots, you have it now.

This moment has been an absolute disgrace in the American history.

That's all I have to say.

[–]grlc51 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]grlc52 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Him yelling about a democratic conspiracy throws all semblance of impartiality out the window.

What? No it doesn't. He's absolutely right. He's saying it exactly as it is. If anything, it proves his honesty.

His work with Starr throws impartiality out the window.

Ah, the bitterness of the Clinton scandal.

One thing we know for sure. Clinton actually did it.

So are you saying this is "revenge"? Because that wouldn't be a good thing. I would not support that. Is that what you expect from government? Revenge?

He has no ability to be impartial and that you think otherwise is laughable. Is it the result of some sort of disease that you can willfully ignore reality?

I just happen to have a different opinion than you.

In any event, let's suppose you're right and he is "impartial". Does that justify dragging his name, his family's name, Dr. Ford's name, into the mud and creating this pathetic charade filled with virtue signaling and red herring dead ends?

This is a media circus. If you think it's revenge, fine. If you think it's due to impartiality, fine.

Then why don't they just say that instead of hijacking the MeToo Movement and relying on dirty backroom media tricks?

[–]grlc52 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lord_fairfax -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]lord_fairfax -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]lord_fairfax 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lord_fairfax 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We're not much different than before.

Ford alleges under oath a sexual assault by Kavanaugh with assistance from Judge. Kavanaugh denies under oath Judge denies under oath Two other alleged attendees deny the overall scenario of the party as described under oath. This includes Ford's good friend at the time, Leland. Ford can remember some details about the period of time she was inside the house "clearly" and fails to remember other details. She can't actually remember how many people were there. She can't remember if Kavanaugh and Judge arrived before or after she did, but alleges that Kavanaugh was already drunk before he arrived. She can remember almost nothing about the hours immediately before arriving or immediately after leaving, including who may have driven her to and from the location. But she doesn't describe anyone else leaving with her.

She distinctly remembers greeting Judge ("hello") at a grocer 6-8 weeks after being assaulted and traumatized for life by Kavanaugh and Judge. At the time she saw and said hello to Judge, she was alone, having wanted to enter the grocer through a different door than her parent. She didn't describe Judge approaching her, instead she is the one who initiated contact with him.

She can't remember basic facts about some events in the past two months, including whether a polygraph was the same day or a different day than a funeral for her grandmother, and whether or not she shared her therapy notes with a WaPo reporter.

The questioner established minor inconsistencies in her previous statements, among those the number of attendees, and timing of the incident.

All tolled there are no new facts that support an allegation of sexual assault by Kavanaugh and no new facts that refute it. And there's not much here that you could follow up on since, for example, Ford can't provide the name of the person(s) who drove her to and from the party.

[–]salt_minor_XD 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]chesterburger 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]salt_minor_XD 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Questioning those who were there, under oath. Thats a good start.

How closely did you follow the Jian Ghomeshi Trial?

All three complainants, lied under oath.

They were shown to be lying. Not misremembering, not being unsure of the details. They were lying.

We need proof. And frankly, there is no suitable proof from 36 years ago.

Innocent until proven guilty. I will die on that hill defending that fundamental bedrock principle of our justice system.

Questioning the people that have been informed about it since then, thats another good avenue.

Who? Lawyers? Psychologists?

Yeah. I'm sure none of these people have a horse in the race. /s

Or, ya know, we can do what you guys want and just call her a liar and elect a possible molester. You guys love it when serial molesters get more power. :D

So he's a "serial molester" now?

And I'm "you guys"?

Cool.

So let's maintain standards.

Why aren't you calling for an investigation into Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's groping allegation.

Check and mate.

I will make it known. Every single person from now on who entertains this bullshit MUST ALSO demand the same treatment for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

If not, I will call it like it is: Bullshit.

[–]salt_minor_XD 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]salt_minor_XD 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LateralThinker13 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]salt_minor_XD -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]salt_minor_XD -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

The alleged crime does not involve any federal employees, did not take place on federal government property, does not involve terrorism, does not involve spying by foreign powers or any of the other attributes that would bring it under FBI jurisdiction. Thus it's a local police matter.

The FBI has completed their background check, following their process for doing background checks, and delivered the result.

The USA is a nation of laws. The FBI is not going to randomly go off and do something just because you throw a tantrum. They have to operate within their jurisdiction and rules. A politician cannot order the FBI to randomly go off and do something outside their jurisdiction without having the legal authority to do so. This committee does not have that authority.

Your Trump Derangement Syndrome is impressive, but it cannot rewrite laws to cater to your whim.

[–]salt_minor_XD 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]salt_minor_XD -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]salt_minor_XD -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]salt_minor_XD0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No. You.

Dumb mother fucker.

The FBI are literally the only government body in this fuckin country that can (and should) investigate these claims. They would reopen the confirmation investigation, go through the paces on this, and if they found nothing they would report that and if they did they would report that too.

Are you just fucking retarded or is this what the folks over at the_dotard are telling you and you are just eating this shit up? Because this is fucking stupid and if you believe it in spite of the facts then you're a dumbass.

No one believes this bullshit you are peddling, not even the republican party is saying this stupid fucking thing you have said here. Think about that. Here you are, out on a limb with some kind of bullshit you read on the internet, and trying to convince other people of it. Shame bruh, shame.

[–]tmone1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]salt_minor_XD1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]salt_minor_XD0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tmone1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]frostbird 7 years ago* [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]LateralThinker13 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]cranktheguy 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]digitalpizza5 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cranktheguy -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I keep hearing "no evidence" repeated, but maybe you're confused about the definition. Testimony is a form of evidence, and there are several people confirming these stories. The doctors notes of her mentioning this are evidence, and they show she made these accusations before it was politically expedient. His yearbook and calendar are evidence, and they actually lend credence to Ford's story. As does Judge's book describing their youth.

It's not some random. He knew her. She has evidence. She's not the only one. And there are many from his past calling for an investigation. Including his roommate and one of the people at the alleged party.

He still has his job, so I'm not joining the pity party just yet. And considering his opinions from the past over women's testimony...

Kavanaugh urged that it was the function of the independent counsel to “make [Clinton’s] pattern of revolting behavior clear”.

“The idea of going easy on him at the questioning is thus abhorrent to me,” he wrote.

... it would be hypocritical not to hold him to his own standard.

[–]LateralThinker13 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]cranktheguy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thamasthedankengine-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChirpingBirb 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bobert-big-shlong -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rumpadunk 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bobert-big-shlong -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Rumpadunk 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoTotality2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NocturnalTaco 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]braden1118 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]notondurgz 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]bobert-big-shlong 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]notondurgz 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Have you read her other tweets? Do you know the people she attempts to represent? She used a murder victim to support her views, without the family's consent. Then, when the family replied to her saying they didn't agree with her opinion at all and nor would the victim, she insulted them.

She is a piece of shit, and the fact that I am being downvoted on this comment seriously makes me question the type of people who subscribe to this subreddit. You guys are fucking pathetic.

Edit: the problem with subreddits like this are that they attract useless morons who don't actually care about the core values it represents and who are just angry in general and not even informed in the slightest.

If you support Brett Kavanaugh you are also a moron. The more I see, the more I think that this subreddit is biased toward the same alt right retards who voted Trump into the White House. This isn't what Men's Rights is supposed to be about. You're just as bad as the feminazis.

[–]digitalpizza0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bobert-big-shlong -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]notondurgz 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bobert-big-shlong-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]notondurgz1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not that I should even have to do this, since arguing that I need to go do your own research for you is a dumb ass way to argue, but I literally just fucking gave you one. It was reposted on the front page of Reddit for weeks.

Aside from that I'll read you a string from just today - "the Democrat party is complete and utter trash. Anybody with a semblance of decency can no longer deny this conclusion". You think this isn't a person with a clear and specific agenda? She will use anything to support her biases. She doesn't give a fuck about men's rights.

Go read her Twitter for yourself instead of making yourself seem like a lazy antagonistic asshole. If you don't see how everything she says is meant to pander and encourage her own political agenda, then I have little else to say to you.

Even if you look back to weeks prior to this Kavanaugh investigation, all she does is fucking talk about voting in Kavanaugh and supporting Republicans.

Edit: and my god - after the example I already gave before this reply, how the fuck do you even need me to give you more examples of her being a piece of shit on twitter?

My ENTIRE point is that this isn't a person that should have ANYTHING to do with the Men's Rights movement if people want it to have any kind of honour and integrity. It's like appointing Hitler to be the head of MRAs, even with everything else he did, because at least he said that false rape is bad, which any idiot would know is true. And on top of that, if it was anyone but a republican elected supreme judge, she would not give a fuck about this issue. Put a democrat in the same place and she would be pro #MeToo in a second.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Candace Owens' only interest in life is self-promotion and opportunism.

I remember her from Gamergate. She raised a ton of money to build an alleged anti-internet-harassment database which everybody who had a clue about such things told her would be the biggest internet harassment weapon ever created. She wouldn't listen, she made bullshit excuses.

Her concept was fundamentally flawed, it was impossible for any kind of tinkering to fix it but she carried on raising money and talking shit until it was impossible to keep the pretense up and the whole thing fell over.

She lied and was stupidly ignorant and was ignorantly stupid and refused to talk to the several experts in that field who could have helped avoid the fiasco, and lied some more. Nobody can be that stupid so it looks like she's just a scammer.
UGH.

[–]RedSephy 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HovisTMM 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HopliteGFX 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mollylikethedrug 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Valentinebabyboy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]autismlmao 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hirudin 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pm_me_your_buttbulge 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]croidhubh 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NancyReaganCum1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Snowmancupog -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Snowmancupog -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GuyWithTheStalker 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gordon-G 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]braden1118 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]watch_more_C-SPAN0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lupinfujiko-3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]1308917 -11 points-10 points-9 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LateralThinker13 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]used_npkin -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]unitedgood -8 points-7 points-6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomohawk12345-12 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Comments

metoo

ProveIt is better

Title	#himtoo
Author	Adi945
Upvotes	2472
Comments	598
Date	September 27, 2018 1:21 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/9jct95/himtoo/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/himtoo.1184825 https://theredarchive.com/post/1184825