~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
Adi945
[–]TacticusThrowaway 317 points318 points319 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link
I like how feminists got mad because #himToo implied #meToo didn't address men's issues enough. Even though feminists have spent most of the past year acting like #meToo was about M>F sexual misconduct, even when they tried to take credit for Terry Crews speaking up.
[–][deleted] 141 points142 points143 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link
I like how feminists pretend that feminism helps men too. And spewing bullshit like "male privilege" and "toxic masculinity" is supposed to "help" us... These chicks are fucking delusional...
[–]TacticusThrowaway 36 points37 points38 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Just ask them why they don't call it 'sexism against men' or admit women have privileges over men.
To be fair, malefems are just as bad, if not worse.
[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You're completely right, especially on reddit. There is a severe white knight problem here.
[–]TheDarkMaster13 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The problem is that there's two kinds of feminists in this equation. One thinks that feminism is an egalitarian movement and gets mad if you imply otherwise. The other thinks that feminism should be about female issues only and gets mad if you imply otherwise. The two are separate, but ascribe to the same name. So the movement seems to be hypocritical as a result, even if most individuals are not.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It seems that both groups don't actually give a fuck about men.
[–]Tacomastr -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
What is your perceived definition of toxic masculinity?
[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Toxic masculinity seems to just be a phrase thrown around to shame any man doing something that a woman doesn't like. Then they use that to generalize all men into one category.
[–]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
It's the women who tell us to man up...
[–]thamasthedankengine 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Bull shit. It was my dad. It was my grandpa. It was my uncle. It was my football coach.
Never once have I heard a woman in my life tell me to "man up"
[–]CODYsaurusREX 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Came from a single mother household, still heard the phrase a lot. Anecdotal, but so is yours.
[–]thamasthedankengine -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
My point was more that saying "only women say that" isn't true
[–]CODYsaurusREX 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Your phrasing comes across as "it's only men" instead of "it's also men" very very severely.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It was my mom, my grandma, my female teachers, etc.
Your anecdote doesn't mean their comment is "bull shit".
I guess it's personal experience. women are the main factor in my life for why I don't show my emotions. Men have always been there for me. My mother is probably the only exception.
[–]PrettyDecentSort 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
So here's the thing: there are reasonable and useful definitions of terms like "toxic masculinity" and "feminism" and "oppression" that enable people of good will to have interesting and valuable conversations.
And then for every one of those reasonable people of good will, there are a dozen misandric lunatics who completely ruin the term.
This is true for sure.
I agree with that, but to be honest in my experience, women are the ones who make me not want to be emotional. Every time I've gotten emotional around my dude friends they have been there for me. When I get emotional around a woman (especially one that I'm close with, who is always telling me to be more emotional) they end up seeing you as weak and using it against you. It sounds stupid but it's true. Women will subconsciously see you as weaker if you open your emotions up to them, especially if you're in a romantic relationship with them.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
There's a difference between the "dictionary" definition of toxic masculinity, which I don't really have a problem with, and the way it's actually used, which I do have a problem with. It had good intentions as a sociological concept, but it has failed miserably in implementation
[–][deleted] 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
I like how feminists got mad because #himToo implied #meToo didn't address men's issues enough
Is that not exactly what this in implying?
[–]TacticusThrowaway 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm talking about the feminist reaction to #himtoo, the feminists who thought it was about male sexual assault victims, Owens is talking about radfems and false accusations.
[–]RezaWasTaken 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Very similar to the "Black Lives Matter" movement. Anyone that dared to say "All Lives Matter" was a racist. This is the exact same mentality, it needs to stop.
[–]TacticusThrowaway 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Thing is, almost nobody actually says ALM. That was just an excuse to ignore other criticism.
[–]RezaWasTaken 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
But you get what I mean yeah? Like my tragedy is worse than yours, insert buzzword here. Men or women sexual misconduct is terrible and affects a human being on many levels. This victim = woman, suspect = man BS really just frustrates me.
I hope one day its made right.
[–]SpezIsAChild 113 points114 points115 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/9j2f2v/im_a_survivor_and_this_is_my_story/
MeToo
[–]kwyllie93 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Honestly, that is a very moving story. I am so sorry you had to go through that. I am so glad you made it out the other side.
[–]SpezIsAChild 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The funny thing is there's a lot more nasty details I've left out. The women who stood up for me were attacked in such a nasty, ugly way... that that's what finally made me take action. Once my people started to get draw in... that was the final line for me. Thank you for your thoughts. A lot of times it's just good to know you're not alone.
[–]Jaibamon 102 points103 points104 points 7 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link
If someone accuse you of being a rapist, while I agree something like that should put you (and the person who accuse you) into a process that requires proving such crime happened, it shouldn't affect you at all until you're proven guilty. You shouldn't have to loss your job, at least. The idea of making people aware of the false accusations is not to defend or forgive a crime, but to make people think about what we do about those who are accused about a crime it hasn't been proven yet.
[–]idealcastle 41 points42 points43 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
Well if you're a public figure, the media storm will plaster you all over the headlines that you've been a accused of rape. You're fucked. No winning that, even if you can prove it did not happen, everyone already paints you as a rapist.
[–]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
True, mostly. But in this case, he isn't on trial. He is applying for a job. So there can be no guilty or not guilty verdict. All that is being asked is to have an investigation into the allegations, which is the job of the government anyways. This would have all been over with last week if they would have had the FBI look into the allegations. Waiting 3 or 5 days to find the truth is not a bad thing. The GOP are fully responsible for this.
[–]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
Is it a political move by her in doing this delay tactic, yes it is. But we probably wouldn't be here if McConnell hadn't denied Obama a SCOTUS seat when Garland was nominated.
[–]ModsAreThoughtCops -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
So you are victim blaming Kavanaugh/ the Republicans? Come on bro that’s a step too far /s
But I see what you are saying, everything is motivated by revenge and wanting to stick it to the opposing side for some previous “wrong doing”
[–]ModsAreThoughtCops 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
The issue here is lack of evidence. No court would reach a verdict because there’s so little evidence. It would be dismissed within a few hours, if it even took that long.
Should there be an investigation? Maybe. That’s up to people with the power to start an investigation.
Should the confirmation vote be delayed over and over and over until every little (unsubstantiated) allegation gets a weeks long investigation?
Absolutely not.
The lack of physical evidence (and the presence of contradictory circumstantial evidence) would make any judge throw this case out. Reasonable doubt is written ALL OVER IT.
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
You are glossing over the fact that the Republicans in the Senate and white House are preventing an investigation from taking place. Grassley wants cavenaugh confirmed before next week.
[–]LateralThinker13 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
And the Democrats want him blocked until they hope they win Congress in the midterms and can block ANY nominee the president makes until he's out of office.
What's your point?
[–]thamasthedankengine 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You mean exactly like the Republicans did with Garland?
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
My point is that there are MAJOR issues with this guy - potential problems with drinking, gambling, lying under oath, and that's all in addition to the potential sexual improprieties. ANY of these should be disqualifying for a SC justice.
[–]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.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Dude hasn't explained the huge debts accumulated and rapidly paid off over the years. You really didn't look very hard if you only found 2 sources.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/the-many-mysteries-of-brett-kavanaughs-finances/
As for the perjury - it has nothing to do with the sexual assaults - it's about earlier actions: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/17/did-brett-kavanaugh-give-false-testimony-under-oath/
As I said - these are questions which haven't yet been addressed adequately. Nothing is definitive at this point. There has been so much obfuscation and covering up of his history that we really don't have the answers to any of these questions.
[–][deleted] 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
His memoir about his youth of blackout drinking obviously referred to his best buddy - Bart O'Kavanaugh.
[–]RhapsodiacReader 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Absolutely yes. Whether there is reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the accusations is it irrelevant. They exist, and they are not absolutely baseless.
This is enough to delay in favor of investigation when the question on the table is appointment to the highest court in the land as a figure of legal and moral authority. After all, this is a job interview, not a trial.
[–]Kravego 41 points42 points43 points 7 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link
If this is about Kavanaugh, it's important to note that he's not losing his job. He may just not be picked up for a new one. If I were in the process of hiring someone and there were sexual assault or rape charges in process against them, I'm probably not hiring them. And that's not even taking into account the fact that this isn't just a job, it's a lifetime appointment in the highest judicial seat in the country.
[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
There aren't charges agaisnt Kavanaugh, just accusations.
[–]AnotherKramer 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I've lost job opportunities due to accusations. Why is he any different?
[–]ScoutforHire 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The fact that you lost those opportunities is the problem. Accusations shouldn’t hold this kind of weight. The weight of accusations needs to be moved from the social world to the court- only once you were proven guilty or innocent should any details have escaped.
Just like Kavanaugh.
[–]Kravego 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Either way. Like I said, he's not losing his job. He may be blocked from picking up a new one, but you have no rights aside from equal opportunity when it comes to new employment. And character is 100% a valid concern for a position of public trust.
[–]immibis 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
in process
[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link
[–]lidsville76 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
And the accused has no proof either, just his word. And, it looks like he has lied before Congress before. That alone ruins any credibility he had.
[–]tylerkelly43215 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]Ausei 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Innocent until proven guilty. Youre fighting for something thats very dangerous.
[–]scyth3s 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
He's not facing prison time (though he certainly could be for that probable perjury...), that standard doesn't apply. The standard here is "can the public trust him?"
[–]Ausei 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
And with that you should require evidence as well. Its the whole reason we implemented it into the legal system as well.
[–]scyth3s 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
If only there were some legal agency that could be requested to investigate these accusations and check for evidence... Maybe one that the head of the Judiciary Committee could contact?
[–]Ausei -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The local police where the incident happened.
[–]lidsville76 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Not going to lie, it is a slippery slope, but this is not a Court of Law where he may or may not go to jail. This is a job application and interview. It just happens to be for a lifetime appointment and in a very public manner.
[–]thamasthedankengine -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And, it looks like he has lied before Congress before. That alone ruins any credibility he had.
But he'd be such a perfect judge!
[–]mayorodoyle 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Just their word. And the corroborating words of other victims.
[–]ModsAreThoughtCops 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
But NAMED witnesses cannot corroborate a single SPECIFIC allegation.
So. Having multiple people with equally thin and contradictory allegations doesn’t strengthen their validity. Each one should be viewed separately until we can prove that EVEN ONE of them actually occurred. Then maybe talk about a pattern of behavior and “corroborating words of other victims”
If the allegations can’t be supported by themselves, they definitely should not be used to support each other.
The only “pattern of behavior” here is this:
Baseless accusation -> nobody can corroborate.
Baseless accusation -> nobody can corroborate
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
Incorrect. The witnesses are being prevented from testifying under oath.
[–]ModsAreThoughtCops 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
https://m.theepochtimes.com/all-witnesses-deny-allegations-against-kavanaugh-ahead-of-hearing_2668991.html
Couple things in there that might interest you.
“Smyth, Keyser, and Judge have denied Ford’s allegation in letters to the committee under the penalty of felony perjury. Kavanaugh denied the allegation in person under oath before the committee. Ford remains the only witness to not have provided a statement to the committee.”
“These official letters from the 4 named by Dr. Ford—denying any knowledge of what Dr. Ford has alleged—serve the same purpose as sworn testimony,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a member of the judiciary committee, wrote on Twitter on Sept. 23. “We remain hopeful we’ll hear sworn testimony from the 5th, Dr. Ford herself.”
[–]LET-7 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If a tree falls in a forest, it deserves a spot on the supreme court
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This isn't a criminal trial, it's a supreme court confirmation. A credible accusation should definitely be enough to derail the process. A lot more is at stake than Bret Kavanaugh's future.
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
You say "until proven guilty", but what do you mean by that?
I assume you don't mean "in a court of law", since that's too restrictive (if there is video evidence you did it, but the statues of limitations has passed - you'd agree is should affect you, right?)
So if it's not in court, then what level of proof do you require? Beyond a reasonable doubt - according to whom?
For many people, kavanaugh has already been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (to their doubt at least).
So who is the judge? You?
[–]Jaibamon 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I was speaking in general, as it's pretty common to lose your job if you're accused of rape.
[–]LET-7 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
We're not talking about anyone losing their job.
[–]LateralThinker13 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
YET.
[–]LET-7 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Laterally think about some perjury and witness tampering, will ya
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So what do you consider "proof"?
[–]romulusnr 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Who's losing their job here?
[–]Jaibamon 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Speaking in general, people who are accused of a crime can have high chances of loss their job just by being accused, way before they get proven guilty.
[–]thamasthedankengine 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If proven innocent couldn't you sue for wrongful termination?
[–][deleted] 534 points535 points536 points 7 years ago (191 children) | Copy Link
I highly doubt that Kavanaugh is innocent but we will see after due process of law and what evidence is presented. He is not a good example for this one.
[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (121 children) | Copy Link
[–]FeierInMeinHose 40 points41 points42 points 7 years ago (111 children) | Copy Link
Unresolved accusations that come from decades past with very vague details and which just so happen to come at a time where it'd help a political party. Honestly, the accusations against Kavanaugh do not seem credible in the slightest. Kavanaugh even has witnesses backing him up, which is more than the accusers have.
It's crazy that you guys are accepting those accusations as true without any critical thought.
[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (56 children) | Copy Link
[–]haxdal 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
She admitted in the committee hearing today that she never intended to come forth under name, this was supposed to be an anonymous tip. She never expected to be called in front of the committee when she submitted it.
She doesn't remember any details whatsoever. Doesn't remember the date, doesn't remember the house, doesn't remember the street, doesn't remember how many people were present in the party. Only thing she knows is that supposedly Kavanough and Judge were there and at least 2 others.
What exactly is the FBI supposed to investigate? There simply is nothing to investigate; no witnesses, no date, no address, no nothing.
[–]WhippersnapperUT99 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I call bullshit on the entire "wanted to be anonymous" claim. If she had wanted to be anonymous she never would have attached her name or any contact or identifying information to the letter she sent to her Congressman and would have mailed it from a Post Office mailbox.
She had to have known that as soon as she attached her name and contact information to the letter that her identity could potentially be compromised.
[–]Atheist101 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
no witnesses
... does Mark Judge not exist in /r/the_retard's memories?
[–]TheVineyard00 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Thanks for attempting to ruin an otherwise civil discussion. Fortunately, no one cares.
Bye.
[–]sneakpeekbot -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Here's a sneak peek of /r/The_Retard using the top posts of all time!
#1: Trump is a retard | 1 comment #2: I like retards #3: Scrumptious little boy | 0 comments
I'm a bot, beep boop | Downvote to remove | Contact me | Info | Opt-out
[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]superzepto 48 points49 points50 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
She has everything to lose. She has had to move her family from their home, and is suffering a constant barrage of death threats and abuse.
[–]Sinsilenc 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And he isnt getting the same? hell the entire repub side was just doxxed...
[–]thamasthedankengine 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
What does she possibly have to gain?
[–]OccupyMyBallSack 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Oh I don't know.
[–]Vinccool96 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
It’s going into the lawyers pockets
[–]gringojack 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Lawyers said they are pro bono at the hearing.
[–]Atheist101 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That was after she was threatened with death on her and her family
[–]peachesgp 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Do you have some sort of evidence of her political activism?
[–]grandmasbroach 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link
She has a lot to gain. She's a professor, and I'd bet the farm she will be handsomely rewarded if and when she writes a book, not to mention all of the interviews she will also be paid for. I think we should let the investigation conclude first. However, to say she has nothing to gain is simply false. She has a lot to gain, namely money.
[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link
[–]grandmasbroach 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
She said she wanted to be anonymous, and then didn't stay anonymous...You said she had nothing to gain, and I simply pointed out that she will gain a lot of money.
[–]victorfiction20 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
Jesus. Step one of being in a movement that asks for empathy; show some fucking empathy.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Just wanted to say thanks for showing that this sub isn't full of women haters. Sometimes I don't know why I'm still subscribed but then comments like yours remind me.
[–]grandmasbroach -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I said nothing of the sort. Are you one of those people who needs to turn everything into a fight, and not just that, but then need to win it too?
All I said was she has something to gain, because she measurably does. And, wait for the investigation to be finished before coming to any conclusions. You know, just like we try to push for men on here accused of pretty much anything. Sorry I dont listen and believe. No one should. I'd much prefer innocent until PROVEN guilty.
[–]antilopes 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is a job interview not a criminal trial. There is no right to be assumed innocent, and guilt does not have to be proven to get you passed over for the job. Suspicion is enough. They can decline him because they don't like his hairstyle, or they think his eyes are too close together.
[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]WhippersnapperUT99 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I call bullshit on the entire "wanted to be anonymous" claim. If she had wanted to be anonymous she never would have attached her name or any contact or identifying information to the letter she sent to her Congressman and would have mailed it from a Post Office mailbox. She had to have known that as soon as she attached her name and contact information to the letter that her identity could potentially be compromised.
[–]peachesgp 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
But even if she stands to gain money, she intended to be anonymous and thus would never have seen a penny, so using that as her original motive has absolutely no merit whatsoever.
[–]grandmasbroach 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I didn't say it was her original motivation. I actually didn't say it was a motivation of hers at all. Again, and for the third time. You said she didn't stand to gain anything. I said she actually does and will. I never spoke of her intentions. I simply pointed out she will likely make some money off of this. I don't believe I said a word about her intentions. I said that, and how we should wait for and investigation. We shouldn't bypass innocent until PROVEN guilty. That is a very important part of a judicial system that works properly.
Anything else you got out of that was an assumption. I never said a word about intentions or motives. It was as simple as you saying she has nothing to gain, and me pointing she will get paid regardless.
[–]peachesgp 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I didn't say shit before this actually. She stood to gain nothing when she came out, so casting doubt based on that she could gain money is again, totally and completely baseless. And you did suggest that, so stop this begging the question garbage where you try to say you didn't suggest what you did.
Also, this is not a criminal trial but a job interview. Innocent until proven guilty need not apply.
[–]grandmasbroach 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Holy shit... I didn't cast doubt either. I just said, wait for the investigation to finish, and she will get paid. Which of those two statements are you taking issue with? I don't see why, as they are both completely true. Again, whatever else you take from that statement, like assume I'm begging the question, is in your imagination.
I don't care if it's criminal. Proof is proof. I'm not going to call someone guilty until this is all done. If you don't think it's being investigated you aren't very bright. I assure you, there are people and orginizations that would pay a lot of money to have a more definitive answer to this, and are paying large sums of money to do so.
[–]Sgt-Butter -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Actually Ford does have something to gain.
💵
[–]thamasthedankengine 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
She wanted to get anonymous, so she wouldn't have gotten any money
[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
She has a lot to gain. Money, sympathy, and political power.
[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
Especially when she originally wanted to be anonymous
[–]clockticker -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
She has nothing to gain? She has every news site talking about her and her popularity is sky rocketing. Purgery is not as bad as being convicted of rape, so she has the advantage in that regard.
And yet she's getting threatened by a massive group of people. Doesn't sound like someone whose popularity skyrocketed.
[–]Atheist101 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
his calendar proves Dr. Ford was correct
[–]Etheros64 28 points29 points30 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
If I'm not mistaken, Ford consistently brought up Kavanaugh(not by name but by description) in marriage counseling going back at least 6 years and it is documented. There is no feasible way she could have predicted him ever getting into the supreme court that long ago, so the allegations do have some credibility, as much as you don't want to admit it.
[–]Zumbert 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I mean what sort of descriptions, I know nearly nothing about the case and that could potentially be very vague.
[–]BoabHonker 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It is his specific name.
[–]Etheros64 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It wasn't. She said it was someone she went to highschool with and that they were in the exact same field and the same position as Kavanaugh, and perhaps even more specific than I can remember(like what geographical area he was in too). Even without that last part, he is literally the only person that fits that description.
[–]WhippersnapperUT99 -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Ford consistently brought up Kavanaugh(not by name but by description) in marriage counseling going back at least 6 years and it is documented.
One of the problems is that it's not documented (not that it would really matter, see below). She could have just attached his name to the allegation so that, in her mind, something good could come out of the horrible experience she had suffered.
Even if she had brought up Kavanaugh's name in therapy, that doesn't mean that she identified the right person or that her recollection of the details of events are accurate.
[–]Alleyria 36 points37 points38 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Sure they are - coroborated stories from multiple sources that show he has a problem with alcohol. Hell, his college roommate said he had a problem.
[–]ellamking 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
where it'd help a political party
Ford contacted her representative while it was still only a list of candidates expecting that they could choose someone else.
[–]thamasthedankengine 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And also asked to be anonymous
[–]mayorodoyle 49 points50 points51 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
"From decades past"
"Nah guys, it's cool. Yeah I raped her but it was like decades ago so, no biggy."
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link
He was never accused of rape by Ford. It was sexual assault
[–]antilopes -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
She was sure he intended to rape her.
He had great difficulty getting her clothes off because she was still wearing the full bathing suit from the diving session her parents presumably believed she was still at.
Diving is tough on swimsuits, they need to be tight fitting and not too stretchy. They are not loose at the top especially.
The thing that caused her the most trouble in her life arose from fear he would accidentally kill her by suffocation after she tried to call out to the people downstairs.
[–]digitalpizza1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
listen and believe, right?
[–]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
I've been falsely accused of other stuff. It is not fun and can be disastrous. Having a reputation for honesty helps a lot but some lies are corrosive. People make up their own minds, there is no presumption of innocence in real life including in job applications.
Does she seem credible?
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
seems like a pretty specific memory for someone who couldn't remember
Time/date/location of party
Who drove her to party
Who was at party
Who pushed her into room
Who drove her from party
Date/who paid for her polygraph
Grandmother's funeral date?
[–]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?
Is it common for people to attach a memory to someone that didn't do it, since two people have come forward and said they did what she was describing, and Brett wasn't there?
[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
There is nothing vague about Ford's accusations.
[–]GCMythix 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
Name the exact date, place, time, witnesses, and what actually happened. Go.
Edit: and give sources for all of the above too.
[–]LateralThinker13 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
Downvoted for requesting facts. Typical.
[–]GCMythix 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's what happens. If you even entertain the idea that the victim needs to provide evidence (especially if it's a crying woman) than you will be downvoted to hell. People dont want our justice system to work, they want to condemn people based on how they feel about them. Feels over reals bullshit.
[+]IceVest -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
Sealioning potential rape victims. Typical.
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I thought ford is accusing him of sexual assault, not rape. If you are going to back baseless accusations, at least get them right.
Attempted rape. She was wearing a full diving swimsuit under her clothes so he had great difficulty getting her clothes off.
[–]LateralThinker13 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Rejecting innocent until proven guilty. Typical.
Also, WTF is sealioning?
[–]IceVest -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
It's not a trial
[–]LateralThinker13 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
It'd be more fair if it was. Everything Ford has said would fall apart under evidentiary rules.
Can't, because the investigation has been blocked by Grassley, McConnell and Trump.
[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The important details in her testimony were perfectly clearly remembered.
It is normal for other details to not be remembered, especially after this time. She named the suburb and I think a couple of the other people downstairs, plus Kav and the elusive Mark Judge.
Watch her testimony. They NYTimes site has video summaries.
[–]NolanHarlow 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
People are absolutely blinded by their politics here.
Out of the blue, vague, impossible to prove and never before mentioned accusation from 36 years ago?
Fuck this conservative asshole. He's guilty!!!
[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Etheros64 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Not out of the blue at all. Kavanaugh, while not named, was described in marriage counseling going back at least 6 years.
[–]rawbface 37 points38 points39 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Nomination for the US Supreme Court is hardly "out of the blue". If ever there was a time to bring it up, it's now.
[–]Helloshutup 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You obviously don’t pay attention. These accusations came out long before he was put up for the supreme court. It’s crazy that you’re mind is made up without knowing everything.
[–]FeierInMeinHose -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Kavanaugh wasn't named by Ford until he was up for the supreme court nomination, her account of being sexually assaulted at couple's therapy had no mention of Kavanaugh's name except by the accounts of biased parties (Ford and her spouse).
There were enough details to make it a small pool of people, if not just one.
[–]scyth3s -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If democrats were lining up false accusers for political reasons, they would have started with Neil Gorsuch, the original illegitimate justice.
[–]Honztastic -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
In any other time Kavanaugh would have already withdrawn out of basic decorum.
Don't tie that political shitshow into this.
[–]Ayoc_Maiorce -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I agree, and Also, his life isn’t going to get ruined, he just might not get the promotion that he wants.
[+]Ayoc_Maiorce -12 points-11 points-10 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Also his life isn’t going to get ruined, he just might not get the promotion that he wants.
[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]LateralThinker13 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Would you feel sorry for a promising football player who lost his shot at the NFL because of some false allegations?
Ask that to Brian Banks.
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
How do you feel about Merrick Garland's nomination being scuttled for political reasons that didn't even include any allegations of wrongdoing?
[–]LateralThinker13 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Comparing Apples to Volvos on that one. Try again.
[–]Heavycamera -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That situation was ridiculous, and so is this one. Completely different.
[–]BoabHonker 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What if he did it? Is it worth the risk to have a serial sex abuser sitting in the highest court of the country?
[–]Ayoc_Maiorce -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah I get that but his life still won’t be destroyed and just as we can’t assume that he is guilty without any evidence or investigation we also can’t assume that his accusers are guilty of lying or being politically motivated without any evidence or investigation.
[–]necropantser 70 points71 points72 points 7 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link
But Kavanaugh isn't on trial. This is a job interview. It's a different bar.
You are entitled to a full trial before they send you to prison. Kavanaugh isn't entitled to being a Supreme Court judge. His life will still be luxurious as a Circuit Court Judge even if he isn't given this position.
In the interests of fairness there should be a full investigation if the Senate still feels like they may wish to appoint him. However, it is absolutely reckless to appoint him prior to an investigation being conducted.
[–][deleted] 38 points39 points40 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link
Seems like accusations can be used as filibusters by a different name.
Kavanaugh's not even been charged, just being accused. Now appeals to emotion are being made (Chris Wallace saying his daughters are speaking up now) to further validate that accusations are good enough.
[–]necropantser 40 points41 points42 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link
Accusations are what you have before an investigation. If Republicans want to promote him to a very powerful office then the accusations should be investigated before he is handed the office. It's a simple concept really.
[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (19 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.
People are known to lie. That's also quite a simple concept.
[–]necropantser 33 points34 points35 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
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.
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
And the fact that his accuser has evidence of having discussed the situation with a counselor years before his nomination to the supreme court?
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Kavanaugh wasn't named in the therapists notes
[–]necropantser 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Do you ever wonder if you are setting those goalposts in whatever spot is convenient? I mean, in an alternate reality where the therapists notes did contain Kavanaugh's name I wonder if you would be saying, "But there is no hard evidence and its still the same story from the same source!"
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
If his name was in the notes, I certainly wouldn't say "Kavanaugh wasn't named in the therapists notes"
You avoided answering the question. Her description applied to a very small pool of people.
[–]necropantser -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You missed my point completely.
[–]cranktheguy 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.”
Anyone else match that description that she was childhood friends with?
[–]None_of_your_Beezwax 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Not knowing anything about the specifics here I am just going to say that you send your children to elite schools so that they can become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society.”
I mean, that's kinda the point, isn't it?
Conversely, many (most) high-ranking members of society will come from such schools. So really it doesn't narrow things down a terrible lot if that is the only piece of evidence.
Also therapy is a highly suggestive environment. We know the risks of just taking things that come from there at face value from the whole multiple personality disorder myth and the "Satanic child abuse ring" scare that was the #MeToo of the 80's.
That doesn't mean she is lying, but I don't think it is particularly strong evidence one way or another taken at face value.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm not sure I know every single one of her contacts from that time, nor am I aware of the alumni of every elite boys school in the area.
I would guess there are a lot of men from elite boys schools in Washington.
she said she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.”
[–]NdamukongSuhDude -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Came here for this.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Google's turning nothing up for me on this front. Help a brother out?
[–]cranktheguy 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It was in the very first articles to come out:
Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.”
No wonder I couldn't find it -- I was searching for evidence.
If she's lying, the Republicans can do the investigation and then lock her up for lying. Wouldn't the Republicans want that? Why are they stalling about destroying their enemies?
[–]DeathByPianos -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Obviously. It's a stalling tactic that the democrats were forced to resort to because the senate Republicans are trying their hardest to rush the nomination through before the midterms.
[–]lidsville76 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That doesn't make this untrue though. And honestly, I do not blame the Democrats for this. The way the GOP acted with Gsrland and the entirety of the Obama administration, I do not fault them for doing what they think is needed.
If she is lying, she goes to jail for Lying to Congress, and when she gets out, he is still a SC Justice. If she is honest and true, then he is still a Circut Judge for the time being. Justice Thomas went through something similar, although not as scrutinized, and he is a SC Justice going on for more than 25 years.
[–]LateralThinker13 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
However, it is absolutely reckless to appoint him prior to an investigation being conducted.
You're right. We should investigate, and, when they turn out to be unproven slanders, the accusers and the politicians who enabled them should all be run out of office and the public eye and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
[–]necropantser 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
and, when they turn out to be unproven slanders
The way you put this, it sounds like there is no other conclusion than him being innocent. I guess you have your mind made up.
All these women should just shut up and let the man have his job. They're just trying to get everyone's attention because they are tools for the Democrats, amirite?
[–]LateralThinker13 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Nice straw man. Nope, it just looks untrue thus far. If it becomes proven, I'll go with it. But facts on the ground don't present a credible event.
[–]thamasthedankengine 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It only looks untrue it this far because you haven't actually looked and you just read the headlines. All three accusations are extremely credible.
[–]WhippersnapperUT99 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 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?
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
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".
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?
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.
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
He's not on trial but he's already being labeled a rapist by many. His reputation has been tarnished over some accusations with no proof behind them
[–]FruitierGnome -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Except they don't care about an investigation they just dont want him to be able to vote on the next supreme court hearings.
[–]CarlosRanger 26 points27 points28 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Luckily Kavanaugh is a high profile government official who they don’t exactly want to find guilty, so they’ll extend the full arm of the law to prove he’s innocent.
Just wish they’d do this for all the men accused with almost no evidence.
Bill Burr: “You know what I miss from my childhood? Tougher Parenting and Evidence”.
[–]cranktheguy 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
so they’ll extend the full arm of the law to prove he’s innocent.
So where's the investigation?
[–]thamasthedankengine 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
They said they'll use the full arm of the law to make sure that he's innocent
An investigation might prove he's not
[–]LateralThinker13 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You mean beyond the thorough FBI background check?
[–]cranktheguy 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
They obviously missed talking to some people. Why not investigate the new allegations?
Because as we all know the FBI finds out everything, never misses a thing.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
My guess is they don't bother because there is nothing beyond testimony to be brought to this case
The FBI get a special type of testimony though. Testimony under oath. When they know a bunch of other witnesses will also be asked "was Kav a blackout drunk?" they will not be able to claim the standard "I don't know" if they know other people have sworn they did know.
[–]soalone34 28 points29 points30 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
There's no due process going on and no evidence being presented.
[+]Hardinator -14 points-13 points-12 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Are you the judge/lawyer/law enforcement involved in the matter? Because if not you shouldn’t make statements like that when you aren’t privy to the matter.
[–]itsthevoiceman 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's not a criminal/torte proceeding. It's essentially a job interview.
[–]soalone34 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
As far as I know there aren't any invovled. Unless you count the people at the hearing. And even if they were involved unfortunately I doubt there would be any evidence they could find for crimes like this that happened so long ago.
[+]jmkiii -8 points-7 points-6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Were you looking for a smoking gun?
[–]soalone34 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No? I wasn't looking for anything. Though something like that would probably clear things up.
[–]jlevy1126 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I completely agree! There are real people that can get hurt by false allegations in the court of public opinion if not by the legal system. Kavanaugh is not an example of someone that has been hurt by no fault of his own.
[–]b-aaron 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
due process of law
he's not on trial
[–]LateralThinker13 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Sure he is, in the Court of Public Opinion. That's what happens prior to empaneling a grand jury, or organizing a lynching.
[–]fessus_intellectiva 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
...only if we’re no longer speaking literally and are really stretching that metaphor. It’s a job interview, not a trial. If he’s the best we can do that’s pretty sad and pathetic - there have to be better candidates out there.
[–]thamasthedankengine 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I hear a man with the name "Garland" was considered once. Think he might be any good?
[–]grandmasbroach 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Really? It's an accusation, from someone who is clearly on the border of being a progressive political activist, from over 30 years ago, that just so happened to come out before a major promotion in government, and you see no issue here? I agree on woaitng for the investigation. But, cmon... How many cases just like this have we seen fall completely apart in the past?
[–]Darkbeshoy 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
She sent a private letter BEFORE he was officially nominated, when she noticed his name was on a short list of possible nominees. He was the ONLY one for MULTIPLE names to have a sexual assault allegation thrown at him, and it was private. This isn’t some last minute accusation. Not to mention, Neil Gorsuch is conservative like Kavanaugh, yet he was confirmed WITHOUT several sexual assault allegations. Hell, how the hell do Democrat’s benefit? If Kavanaugh doesn’t get the nomination, there is 2 years and a whole list of nominees they can rush through that will probably not be accused of multiple sexual assaults.
[–]MrRobotsBitch 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I agreed with every word of what she wrote until that last line. Nope.
[–]fessus_intellectiva 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes!! This isn’t a court hearing, it’s a job interview...an interview which if awarded is for life. It’s hard to imagine an HR department anyway that wouldn’t have passed on this clown after 1 accusation let alone 5. If the GOP wanted a chance to put ‘their guy’ in there then don’t nominate the frat boy, get someone serious.
[–]ThatOneGuy6381 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The guy who nominated him grabs women by the pussy so... yeah. He really should not have been used for that example.
[–]Ninja_Arena 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, she's just showing her tribalism stripes. "I have non conservative views too!!!!!" But everytime something like this pops up, she tows the party line. Same with climate change. She's smart but playing a game and gets caught up in us vs them thinking.
He may be innocent but he isn't a good example. Some dudes released from prison after false accusations, some university students who were proven innocent by texts later on etc. Those are our examples.
[–]hanmhanm 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Haha yep he def did it. But didn’t Dr Luke sexually assault Kesha too?? Not sure this tweet is helping anyone’s argument
[–]jasonfunk -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
that's how I feel about Democrat leader and representative of Democrat voters Keith Ellison, who is credibly accused of mercilessly assaulting a woman numerous times
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes it took her 30+ years to report whatever happened, as if she remembers anything, its all bullshit.
You highly doubt it? Were you there? Innocent until proven guilty.
[–]maya0nothere -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah.
Lying about being able to drink at 18 was what tipped it over the line.
What else is he lying about?
Almost rape?
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
of course the burden of proof on twitter is even lower.
[–]Clemicus 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's practically non-existent.
[–]mcmur 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
How do we know the allegations against Kavanaugh are fake?
[–]bigcalvesarein 71 points72 points73 points 7 years ago (66 children) | Copy Link
Please do not tie this man to this movement.
[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (64 children) | Copy Link
[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 32 points33 points34 points 7 years ago (56 children) | Copy Link
because there are several accusers and reasonably stable stories.
This sub was pro cosby until it became apparent he was guilty too
[–]NoReligionPlz 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
This sub
Why does this sub feel like an extension of r/the Donald?
[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Because unfortunately there are a lot of right leaning people here (due to most anti-MRAs being left leaning, among other things) and this place is like 90% american (which is pretty much right=trump at this point.
That, and there are several T_D users here. Way too many.
Join me, fellow non-americans, in laughing at America.
[–]itsthevoiceman 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Can Americans also join in the laughter?
[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Sure, I don't see why not.
[–]i_reckon_not 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I'd love to, but so many people in my age bracket and younger in my country get way more polarised over yank political theatre like this than they even do about our own domestic politics. It's hard to laugh when everyone around you is taking it seriously enough to be staking out in- an out-groups based on what side you take in a job interview happening in a country on the other side of the world, that they have no power to affect and will not be affected by.
I can probably manage an ambivalent sneer though.
[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Very well, an ambivalent sneer it is.
[–]xMoody 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
People here all the time think men's rights means treating women as inferior.
Tradcons pretending to be MRAs, am I right? Just like with feminism.
[–]SirGoodSnail 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Because there are Russians and shills that are active in this sub.
Don't get me wrong, this sub is mostly fine... but there is no doubt that the many of the fringe elements here are not here in good faith.
[–]tmone 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link
Few thoughts:
First, falsus en uno. This is a jury charge that says if someone lies about one thing, you can infer they will lie about other things. She clearly lied about being scared to fly, so her credibility is shot.
Second, doesn't want to come forward but takes a polygraph? Please.
Third, the witnesses SHE brought forward have all bucked her story. That's massive.
Fourth, I think she just accused Leland of perjury. She says Leland texted her an apology after she sent her sworn testimony to Congress...implying that the testimony was a lie (or that Leland was sorry she couldn't lie for her). On top of that, she started going into her medical condition, not a classy move.
[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link
Which one are you talking about again?
[–]tmone 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link
todays hearing.
but to counter your reasonable stable story:
We learned today that Ford cannot remember:
But "100% sure" it was Kavanaugh 36 yrs ago
She can't remember if she sent the notes to the Washington Post or not? 3 months ago?
this isnt a credible story. not in the slightest. she cant remember the day she took the polygraph, whether it was the same day as her grandmother's funeral, but she knows she had one beer. i mean, its just such an odd story tbh.
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Damn now I'm going to have to watch this, I can't believe she couldn't remember all of that
[–]tmone 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
its unfortunate to be honest. im all for brett side. i really am, but this poor girl is being used. its so obvious. She is a victim as much as brett is. i believe that now.
[–]yvaN_ehT_nioJ 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yep. She's just a pawn in that whole shit show. Feinstein and co. couldn't care less about Ford besides how she can be used to get one over on the Republicans.
[–]BoabHonker 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
Still remembers more than the attorney general
[–]tmone -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
are you fucking kidding me? his memory on the events are incredible. what the fuck are you watching,
he had more tears than she had corroborative evidence. gtfo here.
[–]BoabHonker 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
That's the supreme court nominee. I was making a joke about Jeff 'I do not recall' Sessions.
If you were at all interested in how memories of historic abuse present in real life, they actually match up a lot better with Ford's testimony.
All that seems pretty reasonable from a traumatic drunken experience 36 years ago... Especially if she went to a few parties at different locations throughout her time there.
[–]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.
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.
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
all good points. but this is pretty much where we stand at the end of the day:
[–]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
From what I saw she knew when the funeral was, just not which day she took the polygraph.
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
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?
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.
[–]digitalpizza1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
She didn't want her name to be public
why would this be ok anyway?
if someone is accusing someone else of rape, then they should have the right to know who's accusing them.
[–]jlevy1126 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
First, that is not what she is saying. And second this isn't in a criminal or civil court.
She was trying to tell the committee what she knew of the nominee. That's it.
[–]genkernels 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Here's a light debate topic if you like: it is not at all apparent Cosby is guilty. Certainly not of rape, but not even of the criminal assault he was convicted of. Here are the two sources concerning the convictions from wikipedia that form the starting point.
[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
So you are suggesting he was convicted before proven guilty?
[–]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
I personally don't know if he is guilty. I'm also not sure how I can find out. But I do know he has gone in record misleading and lying during this hearing. To me, he is already unqualified for SCOTUS based on that alone. But it also goes to his current character. If I knew nothing else but that he is a liar, I wouldn't believe him when he says he did nothing wrong.
So do I know he did it, nope. But do I believe him when he says he didn't, nope.
[–]AThiccMeme2 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
How did he mislead and lie during the hearing?
[–]jlevy1126 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
His Role in Bush’s ‘Enemy Combatant’ Policy.
His involvement in Judge Pryor - at the very least he misled the committee.
Emails that Miranda sent to Kavanaugh about improperly obtained documents in 2004.
A few other instances I don't recall off the top of my head, but can dig up if you need more. If so I'll try to get them after I eat dinner. Let me know.
[–]AThiccMeme1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
So you mean he didn't tell the truth on them?
[–]jlevy1126 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Lying or at the very least misleading depending on the issue.
[–]Galtrand 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You're on Reddit
[–]Chernoobyl 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Because he's an evil white conservative
I like the idea of this hashtag but fuck Candace Owens.
[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Amazing that even people in here are not immune to assuming that Kavanaugh is already guilty.
Allegations throw at a wall and hoping they stick...
[–]tmone 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
i lost a lot of faith in this sub today.
[–]rattlesnake87 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I'm hoping it mostly Fem-sympathizers who came in once this hit the front page.
Everyone is innocent until guilty.
False accusations ruin lives.
And people on reddit have already forever labeled Kavanaugh as a Rapist. I hope its not the norm for people out of reddit.
[–]tmone 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Good points brother.
[–]MahouShoujoLumiPnzr 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The vast majority of them don't post here. It's reached the front page now, which means concern trolls have shown up en masse, and the mods have continuously refused to do anything about them.
I haven't seen anyone assuming he's guilty.
I hate everything he stands for and find Blasey-Ford's evidence extremely persuasive but I still would not find him guilty in a criminal trial.
This is not a criminal trial though. If it were a civil case with only monetary penalties and no criminal record I'd be inclined to find in her favour at the 50% standard of proof used in civil hearings, based on the bits of her testimony I've seen.
At the job interview level of proof, he absolutely has blown it. He flat-out lied about his routine extremely heavy drinking in college, and it looks rather like he lied to his wife about being a virgin until well after college.
Given his and Mark Judge's drinking history, he can't reliably say what did and did not happen.
[–]thamasthedankengine -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I don't think most people here "assume he's guilty". They want an investigation because there is a chance he is.
[–]tenchineuro 48 points49 points50 points 7 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link
If there's some non-radical feminism, I've been unable to find it.
[–]Lethn 28 points29 points30 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Even the ones who claim they're 'normal' believe some utterly crazy shit. The only normal ones quickly denounce feminism or get booted out of the movement and disowned.
[–]tenchineuro 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Yes, why does CHS claim to be a feminist anyway? The rest of feminism calls her an anti-feminist and a rape apologist. There are a few women of this stripe, they are not feminists at all. The rest of feminism could be characterized by Big Red with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
[–]Lethn 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
She's one of the few old school feminists out there and I think she just doesn't want them to have control over the label. I get what you're saying in that it is a bit of a lost cause but if she believes she can reform the movement more power to her I guess.
At least she isn't like these liars who pretend to be moderates and sane people then immediately proceed to attack men when they think you're on their side.
[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I get what you're saying in that it is a bit of a lost cause but if she believes she can reform the movement more power to her I guess.
It would be great if she could reform the movement, but after all these years, things have continually gotten worse.
I've seen that a number of times, which is why I have a latent distrust of some posters. But time will always out the truth.
[–]Sawses 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Feminism is a woman-focused movement meant to keep women from being at a disadvantage on average compared to men in any single facet.
You know the stuff you believe about men's rights? Wanting equal treatment in family court, more equitable alimony and/or child support, less male-targeted imprisonment, better prison quality, and so on?
Think about that general mindset, but for women's issues. The two movements really shouldn't be at odds, and yet they are. It's...frustrating, to say the least.
[–]romulusnr 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That was first wave.
[–]Sawses 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean it can't still exist. You've just got derivative movements as well.
[–]Kinoa_loud 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Non-radical feminism is anyone who wants equality of both sexes, no? There are many great examples of it before our modern age, people have just ruined what used to be a good movement... but that doesn’t mean ALL feminism is evil and radical.
[–]tenchineuro 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Non-radical feminism is anyone who wants equality of both sexes, no?
Depends on what you mean by 'equality'. Currently feminists are demanding that women earn in the aggregate the same as men.
There are many great examples of it before our modern age, people have just ruined what used to be a good movement...
You really need to do some research, it's always been about female supremacy.
but that doesn’t mean ALL feminism is evil and radical.
Great, show me this 'good' feminism.
[–]romulusnr 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I have concluded lately that I would easily fall in the category of "first wave feminism," which focused on creating equal opportunities and upending traditionalist gender roles. I'm not entirely sure if I would fit into any of the later waves.
Even the "best" Feminists don't actually do any real activism. The vast majority of self-described Feminists only call themselves that because "it means equality!" It's just a good-boy tag. And by being so attached to it, and defending it at every possible turn, they serve as shields to the activist Feminists who are, overwhelmingly, misandrists.
[–]Ninja_Arena 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
They just aren't vocal so that's why. I will still, if pushed, argue that I am a feminist against more extreme people.
This is why labels sucks and we need to discuss individual issues and not worry about labeling them this or that for political or social points.
[–]tenchineuro 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
They just aren't vocal so that's why.
Then that's why I don't see any evidence for their existence. How do you know they exist?
Labels are one of the ways we extract order in a disordered universe, there is nothing wrong with labels per se. Now the labels feminists slap on men are slanderous (rapist, batterer, etc...), but calling someone a feminist who claims to be a feminist is not an act of mislabeling.
[–]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
Assume much?
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.
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
To that first part, not assuming, at least not in a label or ignorance way. You literally don't meet non radical faminists, I went into why I think that may be the case so I have to assume some things including that it may be simply how you define feminism as to why you don't meet them.. I don't know you but it is really odd you know nobody who has a less extreme view. They are literally on this sub....daily, weekly?
[–]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
....everyone is the same with the label you give them
[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
I don't assign labels, either you call yourself a feminist or you do not.
[–]Ninja_Arena 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
The label you assign is what that means to you
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
If the right as a whole can be condemned by the occasional existence of racists in its midst, and due to the fact that they occasionally have members of shitty character, then feminism as a whole can be condemned likewise.
I don't think the "right" can or should be.
Again, you are falling into the same trap.
Both ways of viewing people and tackling issues and problems are wrong and leads to more bullshit.
The world can't be perfect but at least try not to be almost exactly like the people you are complaining the most about
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
To further your point, feminism has been actively racist, sexist, and bigoted since it's inception. It has only ever been about what benefits women and damn the costs to anyone else.
Racist, Sexist, Bigoted
Actively Fighting against equality
Indoctrination, miseducation to push agenda
Historical revisionism of domestic violence
Have a good day
[–]Tacomastr -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Have you bothered to look?
[–]tenchineuro 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
Yes, for decades. People keep speaking about these so-called moderate feminists, but if you ask them who they are and what they advocate for and against, it's crickets. If they exist, then there should be some evidence for their existence. Got any?
[–]Tacomastr -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
I believe its called intersectional feminism. A cursory google search got me that.
[–]tenchineuro 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
I believe its called intersectional feminism.
That's where they rank everyone as to how oppressed they are. A white CIS male is at the top of their list and hence unable to say anything about anyone more oppressed than they are. This is concentrated identity politics.
[–]Tacomastr 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Lets continue this: Where have you been looking for these non-radical feminists? And you know what they say about making broad generalizations for entire groups of people. I was taught for for every conceived rule there will be an exception. This is undoubtedly true in this case too.
[–]Clemicus 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
No. You're completely out of bounds here. You give some stupid response - - that it's related to intersectionality - - then completely ignore the response.
You have no idea wtf you're discussing. Now begone.
[–]Tacomastr 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I'm still here. You wanna chat too? Nice, all my chat buds stopped responding. The point I tried to make is that a non radical feminist would easily be found as someone under the banner of inter sectionalism. He did not give a response to my question so I assumed the point was detrimental to our conversation and therefore I switched gears.
[–]Clemicus 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I do not wish to discuss anything further with you.
[–]Tacomastr 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Fair enough. I'll respect your wishes.
[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Lets continue this: Where have you been looking for these non-radical feminists?
I'm looking here right now, can you point me to these non-radical feminists?
And you know what they say about making broad generalizations for entire groups of people.
Broad generalizations, riiiggghhttt. This ain't about broads, this is about feminists.
[–]Tacomastr 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
You're looking for non-radical feminists in a subreddit for Men's Rights? You're talking with one - and way to deflect the point I made. Saying there are no non-radical feminists is like saying there are no non-violent men in the world. And surely you wouldn't say every man is violent.
You're looking for non-radical feminists in a subreddit for Men's Rights?
No, but after several posters asserted that a non-radical feminism existed, I asked for their evidence.
You're talking with one - and way to deflect the point I made.
The issue really is a non-radical feminism, so you do not demonstrate that by yourself (assuming what you say is true).
Saying there are no non-radical feminists is like saying there are no non-violent men in the world.
Well, feminism does say that, the patriarchy is everywhere you know, kinda like the invisible hand of the market.
And surely you wouldn't say every man is violent.
Feminism would, and does. Is that what attracted you to the feminist movement?
[–]BenSwoloP0 45 points46 points47 points 7 years ago* (29 children) | Copy Link
This was going great, until she attached it to Kavanaugh....
Edit:
For anyone going down thread, don't feed the trolls.
[–]Sgt-Butter 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (28 children) | Copy Link
It hasn’t been proven by due process yet, let’s not hold him to a double standard because he is in the world of politics
[+]BenSwoloP0 -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link
Nothing to do with being in politics, everything to do with his loudly spoken views and his shitty voting record.
All signs point to him being a shiteater, regardless of what happens today.
[–]Sgt-Butter 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link
Woah dude, let’s not judge someone's character based on who they vote for. And everyone is entitled to have their own views and speak them to the world, even if you don’t agree with them.
Ninja edit: and again, we still shouldn’t judge him before due process due to his political views.
[–]BenSwoloP0 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link
And everyone is entitled to have their own views and speak them to the world, even if you don’t agree with them.
Sure, private citizens. Not the people in charge of our government. These religious nuts need to go and it can't happen soon enough.
[–]Sgt-Butter 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link
What’s wrong with having an opinion and being VOTED into a position? Or elected/nominated
[–]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
But I’m right wing, and agree with those kinds of policies. How is it bad for me if the court swings far my way?
[–]BenSwoloP0 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Well, then you are part of the problem and I am wasting words on you.
[–]Sgt-Butter -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Ah. Sorry for not agreeing with you :(
[–]BoabHonker 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You agree with shutting down the Russia investigation?
[–]SpezIsAChild -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
What investigation? I only see a hoax.
Do you often see things that aren't real? Are the Russians in the room with you now??
[–]SpezIsAChild -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
there is open speculation that Trump’s grip on the presidency is threatened by the special counsel’s investigation
Complete delusional lunacy
[–]BoabHonker 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Ha, good one
You forgot this -> \s
[–]SpezIsAChild 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
You ShareBlue Soros shills are out in force today huh. Man... I can't think of anything more pathetic than this. Wow.
[–]rclouts-1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link
No. It's not bad for everyone. It's only bad for people who disagree, and even then it isn't that huge of a deal. People can have a difference in opinion. You're mistaking your own opinions and beliefs for facts. That is arrogant, selfish and immature. He deserves a due process just like any other person accused. He is innocent until proven guilty. You need to let go of your own prejudices.
[–]BenSwoloP0 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
All of...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna906401
these opinions...
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-kavanaugh-president-20180805-story.html?outputType=amp
I make up...
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/7/9/17551584/brett-kavanaugh-president-criminal-investigation
out of thin air...
https://www.thenation.com/article/brett-kavanaugh-argued-sitting-president-law/
hurt my brain.
[–]rclouts0 points 7 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
Look man, I'm not going to criticize where you get your news. But it is definitely important to read from sources that don't always line up with your beliefs. You're only proving that you have a closed mind to anything that disagrees with you. Again. They're opinions, just because a lot of people say them it doesn't mean they're fact. I'm not going to waste any more time on this. It you're happy in your ignorance then that's fine.
Nothing to do with politics but it is really all about politics.
All s9gjs point to this being a desperate smear campaign of lies upon lies.
Extraordinary Claims demand Extraordinary Evidence.
[–]Electroverted 40 points41 points42 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Brett Kavanaugh
/r/Cringe
[–]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
I'm steadfast against women making false allegations. I've worked around criminals for a long time and I've heard so many liars over the years.
I don't know what happened but that woman appears to be telling the truth imo.
[–]tmone 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
BaSiC mEmOrY fUnCtIoN
But I KNOW I had 1 beer at a party 35 years ago
[–]goodmod[M] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This seems a good summary of the case for disbelieving Fotd's accusations. I suggest that you make it a post on its own.
[–]rattlesnake87 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Just your gut feeling? Because nothing she has said has held water.
[–]tmone 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LateraLincisor 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
wouldn't #HeToo rhyme a little better?
[–]Alleyria 34 points35 points36 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Let's not make Kav the hill we die on. This dude has some credible allegations that *should* bring pause to this job interview. I know false accusations are an issue, but for god sakes, get off the trump train and use your head. He'd be a bad judge. The only reason trump nominated him are Kav's views on exectuive power.
[–]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
This dude has some credible allegations that should bring pause to this job interview
Name one. There's been no evidence and a LOT of contradictory statements provided, but no supporting evidence.
Where did it happen? Give me a house.
When? Give me a date.
What, no answer? Exactly.
[–]Alleyria 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Ford starting talking about this in 2012 with her therapist. That's documented.
Kav's college roomate has said Kav drank a *lot*
So, there's two.
[+]foot_kisser -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
credible allegations
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
[–]puppehplicity -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Oh his politics are piss, for sure. I just want him (and Trump, who is also piss) to be taken down for shit that is relevant and provably true.
[–]valleycupcake 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Feels like they missed a chance to make it #MenToo
[–]KingRodent 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link
The second he brought up Kavanaugh the hashtag was ruined.
[–]tmone 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link
[+]IceVest -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link
Reported for spam.
[–]tmone 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
noted for lack of counter argument.
this place is eating itself. good god.
[–]IceVest -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
You're spouting the same shite over and over. No counter argument needed when dealing with a hack
[–]tmone 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link
lol. so you aer unable to articulate a well thought out reputtal to what i have to say. ok. lets try something else.
[–]IceVest 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
See a hack. I was right. And a triggered one at that.
[–]IceVest -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 years ago (12 children) | 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
I think the problem is people suspect it is a false accusation for political reasons.
Using your job example: if every single person that applied for your company had a sexual assault accusation come up you would think that someone is screwing with you.
I’m not saying it is the exact same, I know it’s a different example, but my point is he, in theory, should still be a candidate for the job. If it is proven to be a false accusation then he should not be penalized for someone else lying. If the accusation is true then he is still kept off the bench. Idk. It’s not quite the same as a random person applying for a job.
[–]OddlySpecificReferen 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Yeah... But not every single person applying for the job has a sexual assault allegation, just him. There's also the matter of this isn't just any job, right? This is a supreme Court Justice. There's also, I feel, pretty good reason to suspect that these allegations AREN'T politically motivated in that multiple people now have corroborated a trend of behavior that he is denying. Didn't Mark Judge literally say he was in the room with him, backing up Ford's story?
[–]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
I agree with what you're saying, what most Republicans are arguing is that we shouldn't investigate. That's my issue.
[–]Numerous1 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yea, screw that. Investigate away.
[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link
Guys, I've been posting here for a while. This accuser against Kavanaugh sounds legitimate. Her story has the smack of truth to it. 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. I have doubts about some of the accusations, but the first one sounds legit.
[–]rattlesnake87 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
"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."
So you are ok with allowing a possible false accusation to ruin a man's career? If it is proven false would you still want him to not be confirmed?
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Of course not. It is a possible false allegation. It's also a possible true allegation. This isn't a trial. The committee has to make a judgement with the facts they have. If you were interviewing someone for a job and someone called you to tell you they raped a woman, you wouldn't just dismiss it because there's a lack of evidence. You would probably decide it isn't worth it and find another qualified individual to do the job. It's not fair, but that's how it is. Now imagine you were hiring for the most important position in the country, and if you get it wrong then you are stuck with your new hire for life. This isn't about due process. He doesn't get due process in a job interview.
[–]rattlesnake87 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
I agree with some of your point, but the issue is that this sets a very dangerous precedent on a huge platform. If we allow these allegations that are very weak ruin a man's career, then this will create a large set back in men's rights. Anytime a man has a chance at office/high ranking position all someone has to do is scream rape and they are thrown out. He has had 6 background checks for all his positions in government and not one has turned anything up. It is widely held that most rapists are serial rapists, so just one background check should've uncovered something. Don't you see how this is dangerous to allow these allegations affect this confirmation? Now if you can show me other reasoning to not feel this way please do.
[–][deleted] 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
Once again I agree with you on most points. What I don't see in this situation is a credible accusation? Her accusations are weak at best. God forbid something like she described actually happened to her because no one deserves that. The ever present issue to me is that her story doesn't work.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
It's credible because it could have happened. There is also credible testimony that it didn't happen. I think my unwillingness to agree with the confirmation with the allegations is because we simply haven't had enough time to look at the evidence and process it. If republicans want to rush the confirmation it will only hurt them because if I had to say yay or nay right now I would vote nay. There are unanswered questions. The republicans did the right thing by delaying the vote another week. That will give everyone time to review the evidence and process it. I heard some things just this morning that made Dr. Ford seem less credible. There may be things that happen in the next week that make Kavanaugh seem more likely to be guilty. The delay is good.
[–]rattlesnake87 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The Democrats are the one that allowed it to get to this point. Feinstein sat on all of this since July. If the left truly gave a crap about sexual assault victims there would have been an FBI investigation started almost 3 months ago. If they did that and found something we wouldn't even be at this point.
I'm an independent, leaning Democrat this cycle (mostly because of the corruption and unethical behavior of the Republicans). I hate it when politicians manipulate the system, like when McConnell blocked Merrick Garland, or when Ajit Pai rammed Net Neutrality rollbacks through when the public was very loud and clear about their opposition, or when state republicans restructured voting districts to make them more likely to win. Nothing pisses me off more than politicians cheating to win, and even though I agree with Feinstein's push for the Kavanaugh investigation, I agree that she used the same shady tactics I hate republicans for. They absolutely deserve to be fucked over for what they did to Merrick Garland, but I don't think this is the right way to do it.
[–]rattlesnake87 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
We might not agree on everything but at least we can agree on something!! Thanks for the back and forth on this.
[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Gorsuch set the precedent. There was the same bitterness from Democrats because of Merrick Garland, yet magically no sexual accusation. Why not? False accusations are not an automatic tactic.
Sexual accusations do not usually cause much problem. Trump has more than I can count and they don't trouble him. The Stormy Daniels and the Playboy woman affairs are only significant because he broke campaign finance laws. The other allegations, I don't even know what they are.
Clinton was taken down for lying about his affair, not for having an affair or by the multiple women who claimed assault.
[–]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.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link
It could descend into civil war.
I see where your priorities are. What a tool. Let me elaborate. You went into this with a bias. Only someone who is warped and molded by their politicians could look at it the way you do. That's true of both sides. You have no place in this argument--your masters on the judiciary committee have already given your talking points for you.
[–]Lupinfujiko 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
Would you care to elaborate? Or make any points whatsoever?
[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Why would I care to elaborate to a talking head? Your mind has been made up for you.
[–]Lupinfujiko 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I'm inviting you to have a civil discussion.
Would you like to have a conversation about this? You seem really worked up.
Do you believe in "Innocent until proven guilty"?
[–][deleted] 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?
I'm listening to kavanaugh defend himself as I write this. 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. There is too much at stake. This doesn't happen often, so why him? Out of all the potential ways this could be weaponized, why isn't it? I have a hard time believing that people willing to make false accusations would be so rare if it were such an effective tactic.
[–]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
Go back to watching sesame street and fox News you fucking alarmist dipshit
[–]Lupinfujiko 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Ah. I get it. We're being brigaded here.
[–]LateralThinker13 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yep.
[+]1308917 -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Nope. I just don't have any tolerance for uneducated conservative/alt right dipshittery in a place that's meant to be beneficial to men's rights. You're making us look bad by association. People will start to see men's rights as hateful, mysoginistic, racist pieces of shit associated with alt right ideology, and that's bad for men everywhere. Kindly fuck off and let the adults do the talking so you don't fucking ruin this movement for everyone.
[+]1308917 -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
"Everything I don't like is a personal organized effort by the LIBRULS to attack me."
I sincerely hope you let the adults do the talking before you ruin the men's rights movement by involving your uneducated and hateful rhetoric. People like you are fucking scum.
[–]Lupinfujiko 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well I'm an adult.
Am I allowed to have an opinion?
Gorsuch. Why was there not a hint of any sexual impropriety for him? Democrats were enraged by Merrick Garland being blockaded. Goodwill was gone, it was outright war. So why no allegations?
[–]AkumaZ 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link
You’re confusing two separate allegations
The one you listed as sounding ridiculous is the most recent made by a named accuser who is a government employee and submitted it via sworn testimony yesterday
Also if what you say is true regarding throwing accusations purely for partisan purposes, why is it that this is only the second time this has ever happened with a Supreme Court nominee? The last time being close to 30 years ago. Why didn’t this happen to Gorsuch? A seat democrats likely would’ve been even more upset and charged about because of how Garland was handled
[–]Lupinfujiko 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link
Clarence Thomas.
But also because MeToo hadn't yet been properly weaponized.
[–]AkumaZ -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link
Like I said, this is the second time with the last one being nearly 30 years ago, Thomas was in ‘91
Still doesn’t answer why nothing of this sort happened to Gorsuch
[–]Lupinfujiko 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link
Did you watch the hearing today?
[–]AkumaZ -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link
Yes, and honestly both testimonies came off as believable
[–]Lupinfujiko 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
So what should they do now?
[–]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
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.
[–]lord_fairfax -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
You do realize that calling accusations "nonsense" and "ridiculous" do not make them so, right?
[–]Lupinfujiko 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
True.
Do you understand what, "innocent until proven guilty" means?
[–]lord_fairfax -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
Kavanaugh is not on trial...
edit: I don't know why this one got down-voted. he's not on trial. there is no guilty or innocent verdict at the end of this.
Are you saying this changes anything?
Are you suggesting that someone's life should be ruined because of an unconfirmed and unverified allegation?
[–]lord_fairfax 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I think multiple allegations warrant an investigation. That's all.
[–]Lupinfujiko 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Maybe.
I honestly don't think I'm qualified to make that decision.
However, I will say this. This is a very common method for the media to lead us to reach a certain conclusion.
"But multiple women couldn't have lied?"
Well, but they could be mistaken.
They could all be politically motivated.
They might all believe they need to "stand together for women".
The truth is, multiple accusations does not necessarily mean anything.
[–]lord_fairfax 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
And they don't necessarily mean nothing. Which is why instead of baselessly calling the accusations "ridiculous" and "nonsense" we should be asking for an investigation.
[–]Lupinfujiko 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Is the hearing today not sufficient enough for you?
What else could the FBI possibly uncover here?
[–]tmone -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]salt_minor_XD 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link
I'm sure all of you are chomping at the bit to have an FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh to clear his name before having a vote. Right?
edit: I'm gonna jump out on a limb here and say you are all completely opposed to any sort of investigation. Glad to clear it up. This sub isn't about equal rights.
edit 2: ya know how you guys are always like "we are for EQUAL rights" and "this isn't a woman hate sub!" and "this isn't for redhats only, its for all affiliations". Welp. I'll refer to this thread moving forward to counter point those obvious lies.
[–]Lupinfujiko 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
What are the FBI going to investigate?
One vague story that maybe happened from 36 years ago?
Come on.
[–]chesterburger 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Actually 4 stories plus witnesses.
From 36 years ago.
[–]salt_minor_XD 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Questioning those who were there, under oath. Thats a good start. Questioning the people that have been informed about it since then, thats another good avenue.
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
[–]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
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
So will I. So will I. So an investigation is needed in order to prove or disprove that.
I am.
So yeah I think your narrative just got blown the fuck out of the water.
[–]Lupinfujiko 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
My narrative just got "blown the fuck out of the water"?
Ummm... No. No, it did not.
So that's great you say that. I believe you.
To demonstrate your good faith, why don't you go ahead and start a thread in /r/Canada entitled, "I hereby call for an investigation into Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's groping allegation".
Watch what happens then.
[–]salt_minor_XD 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Will it be the same as when I asked if you guys would agree to an investigation that would clear Kavanaugh's name?
Ah, no. Much worse.
Go ahead and try it.
Actually, I know what will happen. It will be taken down immediately. You might even get banned. It might be an interesting experience for you.
If you want an investigation for both, I have no real issue.
I disagree, but I have no real issue.
[–]LateralThinker13 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
Not their jurisdiction.
[–]salt_minor_XD -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
It actually is.
[–]tmone 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link
no it isnt. lol. its local PD. are you fucking for real?
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
[–]salt_minor_XD -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
No, it literally fucking is not. It's the FBI's responsiblity to investigate, filing anything with the local PD would be past the statute of limitations. Are you confused about why they have been talking the FBI investigating it? Are you not paying attention?
If it wasn't their jurisdiction then why doesn't any single solitary republican stand up and just say that? Because they know better. Everyone knows better. Except you. Because you don't know and rather than listen to others who know better you are being headstrong and dying on that hill.
But tell ya what. Continue to live in fantasy land. I'm obviously not going to make you see reason.
[–]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
This is new evidence that speaks to the confirmation hearing of a federal employee. Federal.
So yeah, let me just go ahead and turn that back around on you and say exactly what I said to the other dumbshit spreading these lies:
If you are right then why wont one single solitary republican stand up and parrot your stupid bullshit? Even one.
They wont because you are wrong, flagrantly wrong.
[–]tmone 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
dude. they can't request an fbi investigation. really. its not their job to just go off on their own. they need the proper authority. guess where that authority comes from. definitely not their jurisdiction.
so say it with me, this is not FBI jurisdiction. The only way it can be, is if WH calls for it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/can-fbi-investigate-allegation-against-brett-kavanaugh-n911036
[–]salt_minor_XD -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The only way it can be, is if WH calls for it.
ok?
So what you are saying is the FBI would not investigate, but they would if the president cared. Gotcha.
[–]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
say it with me:
the fbi does not have authority to investigate this matter. hell, the pres can authorize them to stake out a birds nest if he wanted. doesnt make it their jurisdiction.
you seriously need to do some reading and educate yourself, holy shit.
[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]LateralThinker13 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
WTF? You're against "Innocent until proven guilty?"
[–]cranktheguy 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
For going to jail, sure. For a job interview... hell, if I don't like the way someone talks I won't hire them.
[–]digitalpizza5 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
So rape accusations are fine and require no evidence if done in certain scenarios?
Put your politics aside for one fucking second and have some empathy for how fucked up it is for some random woman to crawl out from your past, provide no evidence, has her story corroborated by any of the people she chose, and still everyone assumes you're guilty because it suits their politics.
[–]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.
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
Sure. But this isn't that. If the Dems want to stop the Reps from nominating this guy, they should do it on his merits. You know, actual proven character defects or bad court rulings. Of which there are, at current moment, none on the table.
They just don't want another (mostly) constitutional conservative on the Court.
[–]cranktheguy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You know, actual proven character defects
Besides his lying on previous testimony?
[–]ChirpingBirb 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Haha fuck off. Innocent until proven guilty.
[–]bobert-big-shlong -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Fucks wrong with you kavanah is a man who is accused of rape with zero proof he is innocent until proven guilty
[–]Rumpadunk 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
saying Brett Kavanaugh is falsely accused, especially so definitively
wut
[–]bobert-big-shlong -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
So what proof do you have he's guilty
[–]Rumpadunk 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Lacking proof of guilt doesn't mean there is proof of innocence. He isn't even found "not guilty" yet. (These are different from criminal hearings.) We are still in the middle of it.
[–]NocturnalTaco 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Jesus Christ, let’s not link a reasonable movement to Brett kavanaugh.
[–]braden1118 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
THANK YOU
[–]notondurgz 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
I wish I could get behind this, but Candace Owens is way too big of a piece of shit for me to want her to have anything to do with Men's Rights.
Seriously. She is fucking awful.
[–]bobert-big-shlong 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
How is she awful
[–]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.
[–]bobert-big-shlong -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Supporting kavanaugh is the right thing to do in this situation in this sub a big topic is false rape allegations and allegations without any evidence the 3 women that accused him of rape have yet to bring forth and evidence and even the people she says were there don't remember it so supporting kavanaugh is the right thing because he is innocent until proven guilty
[–]notondurgz 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
And what does that have to do with Candace Owens not being a piece of shit and my original comment? Or even the rest of my reply comment? You cherry pick the one thing you want to make a point on and ignore everything else? Fuck off.
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.
I'm usually pretty in favor of stuff like this, but when it's Candace Owens......eehhhhh what's going on here???
[–]HovisTMM 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Stop sharing Candace Owens.
She is a shameful opportunists and will flip on a dime so long as she gets to keep it.
[–]HopliteGFX 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mollylikethedrug 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
pump it LOUDER!!
[–]Valentinebabyboy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I love how to old people (me) I read these as pound me too and pound him too every time and chuckle in my head at the irony.
Oh fuck it's going mainstream. This could change shit.
[–]Hirudin 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Just an FYI: Repeating "there have been credible allegations" over and over again doesn't magically make it true.
[–]pm_me_your_buttbulge 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Does anyone see the problem with MeToo and HimToo? One sounds inclusive but is exclusive and the other is exclusive because the other wasn't inclusive?
[–]croidhubh 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Should just take it back and hammer it, like the #cancelsouthpark marketing stunt
[–]Snowmancupog -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
At this point it literally is he said she said she said she said she said. He might be guilty let due process take over
[–]tmone 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Snowmancupog -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Ok one accuser but when multiple people start coming forward his character deserves more scrutiny let see what the other accusers have to say angry guy
[–]GuyWithTheStalker 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeeaaahhhhh... If you could not use BK or Dr. Luke as the poster boys for #metoo or #himtoo that'd be greeeeaaaaat
🤔
[–]braden1118 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Kavanaugh is guilty as hell
[+]1308917 -11 points-10 points-9 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Aaaaaaaaand unsubscribed. Menslib it is.
Good riddance to closed minds.
[–]used_npkin -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Although I respect Brett Kavanaugh’s presumption of innocence and due process…
Brett Kavanaugh is a shitty human being and the United States would be a better country if it did not have him on the Supreme Court.
[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
HAHA good one
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]TacticusThrowaway 317 points318 points319 points (25 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 141 points142 points143 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[–]TacticusThrowaway 36 points37 points38 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheDarkMaster13 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Tacomastr -1 points0 points1 point (13 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]Tacomastr 3 points4 points5 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]Zoenboen 9 points10 points11 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]thamasthedankengine 3 points4 points5 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]CODYsaurusREX 9 points10 points11 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]thamasthedankengine -5 points-4 points-3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]CODYsaurusREX 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PrettyDecentSort 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thamasthedankengine 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TacticusThrowaway 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RezaWasTaken 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]TacticusThrowaway 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]RezaWasTaken 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SpezIsAChild 113 points114 points115 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]kwyllie93 14 points15 points16 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SpezIsAChild 19 points20 points21 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jaibamon 102 points103 points104 points (59 children) | Copy Link
[–]idealcastle 41 points42 points43 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jaibamon 20 points21 points22 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]lidsville76 4 points5 points6 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ModsAreThoughtCops 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]lidsville76 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ModsAreThoughtCops -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ModsAreThoughtCops 11 points12 points13 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]LateralThinker13 13 points14 points15 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]thamasthedankengine 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]LateralThinker13 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RhapsodiacReader 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kravego 41 points42 points43 points (30 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]AnotherKramer 12 points13 points14 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ScoutforHire 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kravego 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]immibis 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (24 children) | Copy Link
[–]lidsville76 2 points3 points4 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]tylerkelly43215 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ausei 3 points4 points5 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]scyth3s 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ausei 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]scyth3s 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Ausei -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]lidsville76 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thamasthedankengine -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mayorodoyle 2 points3 points4 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]ModsAreThoughtCops 12 points13 points14 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]ModsAreThoughtCops 10 points11 points12 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]LET-7 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jaibamon 7 points8 points9 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]LET-7 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]LateralThinker13 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]LET-7 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]romulusnr 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jaibamon 12 points13 points14 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]thamasthedankengine 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 534 points535 points536 points (191 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (121 children) | Copy Link
[–]FeierInMeinHose 40 points41 points42 points (111 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (56 children) | Copy Link
[–]haxdal 16 points17 points18 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]WhippersnapperUT99 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Atheist101 -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheVineyard00 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sneakpeekbot -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]superzepto 48 points49 points50 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sinsilenc 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thamasthedankengine 3 points4 points5 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]OccupyMyBallSack 12 points13 points14 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Vinccool96 7 points8 points9 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]gringojack 13 points14 points15 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Atheist101 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]peachesgp 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]grandmasbroach 13 points14 points15 points (27 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (21 children) | Copy Link
[–]grandmasbroach 3 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]victorfiction20 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]grandmasbroach -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]antilopes 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (14 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (13 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (12 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]WhippersnapperUT99 -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]peachesgp 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]grandmasbroach 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]peachesgp 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]grandmasbroach 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sgt-Butter -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]thamasthedankengine 10 points11 points12 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]WhippersnapperUT99 -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]thamasthedankengine 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]clockticker -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]peachesgp 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Atheist101 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Etheros64 28 points29 points30 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Zumbert 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]BoabHonker 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Etheros64 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WhippersnapperUT99 -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alleyria 36 points37 points38 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ellamking 18 points19 points20 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]thamasthedankengine 13 points14 points15 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mayorodoyle 49 points50 points51 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]antilopes -2 points-1 points0 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]digitalpizza1 points [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]antilopes 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]antilopes 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]immibis 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]GCMythix 17 points18 points19 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]LateralThinker13 10 points11 points12 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]GCMythix 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]IceVest -7 points-6 points-5 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]antilopes 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LateralThinker13 2 points3 points4 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]IceVest -2 points-1 points0 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]LateralThinker13 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]NolanHarlow 12 points13 points14 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Etheros64 17 points18 points19 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]rawbface 37 points38 points39 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Helloshutup 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]FeierInMeinHose -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]scyth3s -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Honztastic -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayoc_Maiorce -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Ayoc_Maiorce -12 points-11 points-10 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]LateralThinker13 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]LateralThinker13 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Heavycamera -4 points-3 points-2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BoabHonker 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayoc_Maiorce -4 points-3 points-2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]necropantser 70 points71 points72 points (35 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 38 points39 points40 points (23 children) | Copy Link
[–]necropantser 40 points41 points42 points (20 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–]necropantser 33 points34 points35 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]necropantser 13 points14 points15 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]antilopes 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]necropantser -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]cranktheguy 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]None_of_your_Beezwax 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]NdamukongSuhDude -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]cranktheguy 9 points10 points11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]immibis 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DeathByPianos -5 points-4 points-3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]lidsville76 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LateralThinker13 10 points11 points12 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]necropantser 10 points11 points12 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]LateralThinker13 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]thamasthedankengine 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WhippersnapperUT99 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]necropantser 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]WhippersnapperUT99 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]OnlyGoodRedditorHere 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FruitierGnome -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CarlosRanger 26 points27 points28 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]cranktheguy 8 points9 points10 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]thamasthedankengine 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LateralThinker13 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]cranktheguy 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thamasthedankengine -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]soalone34 28 points29 points30 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+]Hardinator -14 points-13 points-12 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]itsthevoiceman 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]soalone34 15 points16 points17 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]jmkiii -8 points-7 points-6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]soalone34 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jlevy1126 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]b-aaron 9 points10 points11 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]LateralThinker13 9 points10 points11 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]fessus_intellectiva 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]thamasthedankengine 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]grandmasbroach 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Darkbeshoy 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MrRobotsBitch 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fessus_intellectiva 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThatOneGuy6381 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ninja_Arena 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hanmhanm 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jasonfunk -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]maya0nothere -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Clemicus 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mcmur 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bigcalvesarein 71 points72 points73 points (66 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (64 children) | Copy Link
[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 32 points33 points34 points (56 children) | Copy Link
[–]NoReligionPlz 13 points14 points15 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 15 points16 points17 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]itsthevoiceman 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]i_reckon_not 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]xMoody 16 points17 points18 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SirGoodSnail 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmone 3 points4 points5 points (41 children) | Copy Link
[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 0 points1 point2 points (21 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmone 6 points7 points8 points (20 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmone 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]yvaN_ehT_nioJ 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BoabHonker 1 point2 points3 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmone -2 points-1 points0 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]BoabHonker 4 points5 points6 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]scyth3s -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jlevy1126 -1 points0 points1 point (18 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmone 3 points4 points5 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]jlevy1126 0 points1 point2 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmone 2 points3 points4 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]jlevy1126 0 points1 point2 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmone 0 points1 point2 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]digitalpizza1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]jlevy1126 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]genkernels 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]PM_ME_UR_PC_SPECS 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]genkernels 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jlevy1126 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]AThiccMeme2 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]jlevy1126 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]AThiccMeme1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]jlevy1126 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Galtrand 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Chernoobyl 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmone 12 points13 points14 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]rattlesnake87 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]tmone 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MahouShoujoLumiPnzr 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thamasthedankengine -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tenchineuro 48 points49 points50 points (40 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lethn 28 points29 points30 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]tenchineuro 7 points8 points9 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lethn 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sawses 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]romulusnr 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Sawses 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kinoa_loud 4 points5 points6 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]tenchineuro 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]romulusnr 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MahouShoujoLumiPnzr 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ninja_Arena 4 points5 points6 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]tenchineuro 3 points4 points5 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ninja_Arena 2 points3 points4 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ninja_Arena 0 points1 point2 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ninja_Arena 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ninja_Arena 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Ninja_Arena 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Tacomastr -2 points-1 points0 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]tenchineuro 3 points4 points5 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]Tacomastr -2 points-1 points0 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]tenchineuro 2 points3 points4 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Tacomastr 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Clemicus 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Tacomastr 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Clemicus 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Tacomastr 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Tacomastr 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BenSwoloP0 45 points46 points47 points (29 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sgt-Butter 3 points4 points5 points (28 children) | Copy Link
[+]BenSwoloP0 -6 points-5 points-4 points (27 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sgt-Butter 9 points10 points11 points (25 children) | Copy Link
[–]BenSwoloP0 -1 points0 points1 point (24 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sgt-Butter 3 points4 points5 points (23 children) | Copy Link
[–]BenSwoloP0 4 points5 points6 points (22 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sgt-Butter -3 points-2 points-1 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]BenSwoloP0 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sgt-Butter -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BoabHonker 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]SpezIsAChild -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SpezIsAChild -1 points0 points1 point (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]BoabHonker 2 points3 points4 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]SpezIsAChild 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]rclouts-1 points [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]BenSwoloP0 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]rclouts0 points [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Electroverted 40 points41 points42 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tomowudi 17 points18 points19 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Clemicus 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]tomowudi 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jrobalmighty 12 points13 points14 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmone 2 points3 points4 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]goodmod[M] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]rattlesnake87 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmone 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LateraLincisor 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alleyria 34 points35 points36 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmone 12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LateralThinker13 17 points18 points19 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Alleyria 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]foot_kisser -7 points-6 points-5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]puppehplicity -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]valleycupcake 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]KingRodent 18 points19 points20 points (20 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmone 0 points1 point2 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[+]IceVest -9 points-8 points-7 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmone 7 points8 points9 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]IceVest -3 points-2 points-1 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmone 0 points1 point2 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]IceVest 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]IceVest -2 points-1 points0 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]OddlySpecificReferen 4 points5 points6 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Numerous1 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]OddlySpecificReferen 3 points4 points5 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Numerous1 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]OddlySpecificReferen 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Numerous1 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points (59 children) | Copy Link
[–]rattlesnake87 7 points8 points9 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]rattlesnake87 2 points3 points4 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]rattlesnake87 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]rattlesnake87 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]rattlesnake87 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lupinfujiko 18 points19 points20 points (46 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lupinfujiko 3 points4 points5 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lupinfujiko 7 points8 points9 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lupinfujiko 14 points15 points16 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Lupinfujiko 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]1308917 -7 points-6 points-5 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lupinfujiko 12 points13 points14 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]LateralThinker13 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]1308917 -7 points-6 points-5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]1308917 -9 points-8 points-7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Lupinfujiko 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AkumaZ 0 points1 point2 points (22 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lupinfujiko 4 points5 points6 points (21 children) | Copy Link
[–]AkumaZ -1 points0 points1 point (20 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lupinfujiko 0 points1 point2 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–]AkumaZ -1 points0 points1 point (18 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lupinfujiko 1 point2 points3 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]AkumaZ 0 points1 point2 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lupinfujiko 0 points1 point2 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]lord_fairfax -1 points0 points1 point (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lupinfujiko 7 points8 points9 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]lord_fairfax -4 points-3 points-2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lupinfujiko 7 points8 points9 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]lord_fairfax 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lupinfujiko 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]lord_fairfax 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Lupinfujiko 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmone -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]salt_minor_XD 7 points8 points9 points (26 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lupinfujiko 10 points11 points12 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]chesterburger 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Lupinfujiko 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]salt_minor_XD 4 points5 points6 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lupinfujiko 13 points14 points15 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]salt_minor_XD 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lupinfujiko 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]salt_minor_XD 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Lupinfujiko 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LateralThinker13 4 points5 points6 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]salt_minor_XD -3 points-2 points-1 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmone 3 points4 points5 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]salt_minor_XD -1 points0 points1 point (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmone 4 points5 points6 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]salt_minor_XD 1 point2 points3 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmone 1 point2 points3 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]salt_minor_XD -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]salt_minor_XD -2 points-1 points0 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmone 1 point2 points3 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]LateralThinker13 16 points17 points18 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]cranktheguy 5 points6 points7 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]digitalpizza5 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]cranktheguy -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LateralThinker13 9 points10 points11 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]cranktheguy -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ChirpingBirb 11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bobert-big-shlong -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rumpadunk 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]bobert-big-shlong -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Rumpadunk 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]NocturnalTaco 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]braden1118 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]notondurgz 0 points1 point2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]bobert-big-shlong 1 point2 points3 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]notondurgz 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]bobert-big-shlong -3 points-2 points-1 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]notondurgz 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]HovisTMM 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]HopliteGFX 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mollylikethedrug 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Valentinebabyboy 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hirudin 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]pm_me_your_buttbulge 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]croidhubh 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Snowmancupog -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmone 8 points9 points10 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Snowmancupog -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]GuyWithTheStalker 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]braden1118 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]1308917 -11 points-10 points-9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]LateralThinker13 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]used_npkin -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points (0 children) | Copy Link