Donald Trump
Comments
-
Guilty court of law is not the same as "guilty" here - obviously ...nickice wrote:There are often people are quite obviously guilty who are found not guilty (OJ Simpson, for example) but the standard of proof for the Kavanaugh accusation is so low as to basically be a kangaroo court. There is no evidence except her testimony (which wasn't always credible. Everyone is forgetting the blatant lies about flying, for example).
the questions and allegations are testing his character ... from the limited bits I've seen I wouldn't trust him - but then, I don't need to and I haven't got the time or inclination to be an Internet Judge0 -
nickice wrote:Fenix wrote:Nick - why would Professor Ford put herself into the spotlight if it were not true ?
Do you know her? No? Neither do I. The 'why would I lie' claim is not accepted in courts because sometimes people do lie (and that includes alleged victims of sexual assault). And she could, of course, be mistaken. I remember part of my evidence course at university included a part on how unreliable memory actually was.
But, we'll wait and see. She's already being called a hero on social media. The Guardian has been gushing in its approval of her. I wouldn't be surprised if some exclusive interview and book deals are coming her way. I'm not suggesting she did it because of this but when people say she has nothing to gain, it's not entirely true.
I don't know her but I don't see why a seemingly sensible Professor would put herself in the firing line for all kinds of abuse and the undoubted threats that follow. She could be mistaken, but I'm sure she would have weighed this up before stepping up. Now other women have come forward.
Would you be defending Jimmy Saville and co quite so vociferously ?0 -
Slowbike wrote:
money is normally a fairly big motivator ... I'm not suggesting it is in this case, but assuming everyone would be totally honest about something like this is naive ...Fenix wrote:Nick - why would Professor Ford put herself into the spotlight if it were not true ?
People cheat and lie all the time - you don't have to go beyond cycling to see some shining examples of dishonesty - for all sorts of different reasons.
So what are the reasons then ? What is the benefit she will gain ?
This isn't cycling - it's not the white lie that people have used 'No I'm not on anything' (more than the rest of them)
All i see is a massive invasion of her privacy and all sorts of attacks on her reputation. And for what ? A bit of Kudos ? She could have done a bike ride to get that.0 -
Fenix wrote:nickice wrote:Fenix wrote:Nick - why would Professor Ford put herself into the spotlight if it were not true ?
Do you know her? No? Neither do I. The 'why would I lie' claim is not accepted in courts because sometimes people do lie (and that includes alleged victims of sexual assault). And she could, of course, be mistaken. I remember part of my evidence course at university included a part on how unreliable memory actually was.
But, we'll wait and see. She's already being called a hero on social media. The Guardian has been gushing in its approval of her. I wouldn't be surprised if some exclusive interview and book deals are coming her way. I'm not suggesting she did it because of this but when people say she has nothing to gain, it's not entirely true.
I don't know her but I don't see why a seemingly sensible Professor would put herself in the firing line for all kinds of abuse and the undoubted threats that follow. She could be mistaken, but I'm sure she would have weighed this up before stepping up. Now other women have come forward.
Would you be defending Jimmy Saville and co quite so vociferously ?
I think that's a fairly inappropriate comment to be honest. Saville was well known to be a sex offender by several people in high places (He actually invited my cousin for a liaison when she was in her early teens) with hundreds of witnesses coming forward after his death. I have no doubt that, had he been tried, he would have been found guilty on some counts. Compare that to Brett Kavanaugh.
It doesn't matter if she seemed credible. There was a girl in the USA who claimed to have been raped in college and managed to convince Rolling Stone. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/busi ... -frat.html. It happens, unfortunately.
When it's one person's word against another, I'm going with the presumption of innocence. Especially, given his good record since then. Put it this way, Jimmy Saville never grew out of being a sex offender (nor do most).0 -
Fenix wrote:Slowbike wrote:
money is normally a fairly big motivator ... I'm not suggesting it is in this case, but assuming everyone would be totally honest about something like this is naive ...Fenix wrote:Nick - why would Professor Ford put herself into the spotlight if it were not true ?
People cheat and lie all the time - you don't have to go beyond cycling to see some shining examples of dishonesty - for all sorts of different reasons.
So what are the reasons then ? What is the benefit she will gain ?
This isn't cycling - it's not the white lie that people have used 'No I'm not on anything' (more than the rest of them)
All i see is a massive invasion of her privacy and all sorts of attacks on her reputation. And for what ? A bit of Kudos ? She could have done a bike ride to get that.
Wait and see. She hasn't really done her reputation any harm. She's being treated as a hero.0 -
nickice wrote:Everyone is forgetting the blatant lies about flying, for example).
Really? That's the level that you're willing to call a blatant lie on her side? That she's scared of flying, but flies in planes anyway?0 -
nickice wrote:Because people are immature and do stupid things. It's the reason why juvenile records are sealed in the USA. Everyone has skeletons in their closet. Maybe not of sexual assault but, if it wasn't that, it'd be something else.
I don't care about either party playing politics with a nomination (though I wish they wouldn't) but when it comes to destroying a man's career and reputation, they've gone too far.
Everyone? Speak for yourself! Unless you just mean the sort of trivial thing you'd hate your mother to see but I don't think that everyone has something approaching rape in their closet.
I do agree re the career and reputation thing. Depends a bit on what is true or not though. If it is a false allegation then it is the same damage that anyone suffers in the circumstance though of course public figures are far more likely now to get caught (perhaps it makes up for them probably being rather less likely to get caught in the past).
Personally, if I had any significant skeletons in the closet I wouldn't be sticking my head over the parapet for high profile roles in the first place.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Fenix wrote:Slowbike wrote:
money is normally a fairly big motivator ... I'm not suggesting it is in this case, but assuming everyone would be totally honest about something like this is naive ...Fenix wrote:Nick - why would Professor Ford put herself into the spotlight if it were not true ?
People cheat and lie all the time - you don't have to go beyond cycling to see some shining examples of dishonesty - for all sorts of different reasons.
So what are the reasons then ? What is the benefit she will gain ?
This isn't cycling - it's not the white lie that people have used 'No I'm not on anything' (more than the rest of them)
All i see is a massive invasion of her privacy and all sorts of attacks on her reputation. And for what ? A bit of Kudos ? She could have done a bike ride to get that.
No idea - whether she's telling the truth or is a plant - based on nothing more than my knowledge of teenage boys - I guess more the former.
No, this isn't cycling - but money is a great motivator. If I'd suggested to you that I'd pay you a significant sum to ride about on a deregulated ebike and snap up all the strava KOMs then you may be tempted (despite it being illegal to ride a deregulated ebike on the road) - provided the monetary reward was enough ... keep pedaling quite hard though - got to keep that HR up otherwise people won't believe you!
0 -
Oh that makes it alright then. :roll:nickice wrote:
At some parties this sort of nonsense goes on or at least went on.Veronese68 wrote:
I'm 'only' 50 but I've never considered that normal behaviour even when I'd been drinking heavily at a party.nickice wrote:
I think there is a tendency to judge things by today's standards.Slowbike wrote:
It really does depend on circumstances doesn't it?rjsterry wrote:Starting to undress someone against their will and covering their mouth to stop them screaming is "not carrying it through"? It could have gone further of course but that is already well into criminal behaviour.
I went to a lot of parties and lord knows I'd get drunk and yes we'd do some stupid things, but if anyone carried on like that we'd have had a word with them. Two blokes locking a girl in a bedroom and physically stopping her from calling for help is never acceptable in my world and never has been.0 -
Absolutely - but never take everything at face value.Veronese68 wrote:
Oh that makes it alright then. :roll:nickice wrote:
At some parties this sort of nonsense goes on or at least went on.Veronese68 wrote:
I'm 'only' 50 but I've never considered that normal behaviour even when I'd been drinking heavily at a party.nickice wrote:
I think there is a tendency to judge things by today's standards.Slowbike wrote:
It really does depend on circumstances doesn't it?rjsterry wrote:Starting to undress someone against their will and covering their mouth to stop them screaming is "not carrying it through"? It could have gone further of course but that is already well into criminal behaviour.
I went to a lot of parties and lord knows I'd get drunk and yes we'd do some stupid things, but if anyone carried on like that we'd have had a word with them. Two blokes locking a girl in a bedroom and physically stopping her from calling for help is never acceptable in my world and never has been.0 -
Personally, if I had any significant skeletons in the closet I wouldn't be sticking my head over the parapet for high profile roles in the first place.
That's a strong point.
WRT Trump, it's easy to understand that a lot of people voted for him because there is indeed something rotten about the 'American Dream' where people who get left behind in the battle for wealth are discarded like trash.
The problem I have is he is simply another version of that sickness taking advantage of a large section of the population who want change. He simply isn't going to give it them. When he plays the Rolling Stones: "You Can't Always Get What you Want" he's just having a laugh, it's a p1sstake. He'll string them along while they cheer and clap and vote for the Republicans.
Of course he loves Kavanaugh now because Kavanaugh knows he can be chucked under a bus if he steps out of line.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:Everyone is forgetting the blatant lies about flying, for example).
Really? That's the level that you're willing to call a blatant lie on her side? That she's scared of flying, but flies in planes anyway?
That she couldn't attend the hearing because she was afraid of flying. She flies all the time. This, of course, was probably an idea of her lawyer in order to delay the nomination.0 -
Rolf F wrote:nickice wrote:Because people are immature and do stupid things. It's the reason why juvenile records are sealed in the USA. Everyone has skeletons in their closet. Maybe not of sexual assault but, if it wasn't that, it'd be something else.
I don't care about either party playing politics with a nomination (though I wish they wouldn't) but when it comes to destroying a man's career and reputation, they've gone too far.
Everyone? Speak for yourself! Unless you just mean the sort of trivial thing you'd hate your mother to see but I don't think that everyone has something approaching rape in their closet.
I do agree re the career and reputation thing. Depends a bit on what is true or not though. If it is a false allegation then it is the same damage that anyone suffers in the circumstance though of course public figures are far more likely now to get caught (perhaps it makes up for them probably being rather less likely to get caught in the past).
Personally, if I had any significant skeletons in the closet I wouldn't be sticking my head over the parapet for high profile roles in the first place.
I bet you have big enough skeletons in your closet that the media could destroy you if they so wished. It might not be anything that bad but people are sheep and will follow a headline.0 -
Veronese68 wrote:
Oh that makes it alright then. :roll:nickice wrote:
At some parties this sort of nonsense goes on or at least went on.Veronese68 wrote:
I'm 'only' 50 but I've never considered that normal behaviour even when I'd been drinking heavily at a party.nickice wrote:
I think there is a tendency to judge things by today's standards.Slowbike wrote:
It really does depend on circumstances doesn't it?rjsterry wrote:Starting to undress someone against their will and covering their mouth to stop them screaming is "not carrying it through"? It could have gone further of course but that is already well into criminal behaviour.
I went to a lot of parties and lord knows I'd get drunk and yes we'd do some stupid things, but if anyone carried on like that we'd have had a word with them. Two blokes locking a girl in a bedroom and physically stopping her from calling for help is never acceptable in my world and never has been.
I must have missed the part when I said it was acceptable behaviour (but you have form for setting up stawmen). Like I said, if it happened (doubtful) maybe they thought it was a joke (even she says they let her get out of the room). A very bad and unacceptable joke but a long time ago.0 -
Can I just say that this isn't a court proceeding? It is a kind of rather complicated job interview where there is one candidate offered. IMHO the system is shoot.
However it is what it is.
If you want proof take it to court but for this job IMHO the allegation should be enough for the president to change his mind and put in another candidate.
Can I just say something about judging things by today's standards? I'm mid 40s, I understand kavenaugh is 51. I'm not too far away from him and I find a case of a drunken youth jumping on a girl and trying to take her clothes off as questionable. That's with the standards I was taught in about the same era. I doubt my upbringing was anything special. I went to an all boys school which had links to an all girls school. Parties or rather nights in town went on. Us lads mixed with lasses from the girls school. Not one of us jumped on a girl. Not one of us thought two lads with one lass was the right thing to do no matter how drunk we got. Trust me some friends went too far with drink and stomach pumping at hospital was not unknown put it that way. In our area a lot of the kids were the closest you'd get here if privileged kids like Kavenaugh was.
One more question. What is wrong with wanting supreme court judges to not have even a whiff of scandal or wrong doing about them. This is a job for life and a job with immense power behind it. You would be making decisions that shape the law and even constitution in ways that no other court could, not even the president or Congress. It's a position that ensures the ultimate check and balance for the easy America exists. It's very important. There really isn't the equivalent in UK system.0 -
Tangled Metal wrote:Can I just say that this isn't a court proceeding? It is a kind of rather complicated job interview where there is one candidate offered. IMHO the system is shoot.
However it is what it is.
If you want proof take it to court but for this job IMHO the allegation should be enough for the president to change his mind and put in another candidate.
Can I just say something about judging things by today's standards? I'm mid 40s, I understand kavenaugh is 51. I'm not too far away from him and I find a case of a drunken youth jumping on a girl and trying to take her clothes off as questionable. That's with the standards I was taught in about the same era. I doubt my upbringing was anything special. I went to an all boys school which had links to an all girls school. Parties or rather nights in town went on. Us lads mixed with lasses from the girls school. Not one of us jumped on a girl. Not one of us thought two lads with one lass was the right thing to do no matter how drunk we got. Trust me some friends went too far with drink and stomach pumping at hospital was not unknown put it that way. In our area a lot of the kids were the closest you'd get here if privileged kids like Kavenaugh was.
One more question. What is wrong with wanting supreme court judges to not have even a whiff of scandal or wrong doing about them. This is a job for life and a job with immense power behind it. You would be making decisions that shape the law and even constitution in ways that no other court could, not even the president or Congress. It's a position that ensures the ultimate check and balance for the easy America exists. It's very important. There really isn't the equivalent in UK system.
Because the precedent it sets is that any allegation will be enough to derail a nomination. That's why it's a terrible idea.0 -
nickice wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:Everyone is forgetting the blatant lies about flying, for example).
Really? That's the level that you're willing to call a blatant lie on her side? That she's scared of flying, but flies in planes anyway?
That she couldn't attend the hearing because she was afraid of flying. She flies all the time. This, of course, was probably an idea of her lawyer in order to delay the nomination.
"Ford said she had hoped to avoid traveling to Washington to testify. "I was hoping they would come to me, but I realized that was an unrealistic request," she said, referring to Senate investigators.
When told later by Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, that his staff would have flown out to her to get her testimony, Ford thanked him and said she wasn't aware that was an option. "0 -
Slowbike wrote:Fenix wrote:Slowbike wrote:
money is normally a fairly big motivator ... I'm not suggesting it is in this case, but assuming everyone would be totally honest about something like this is naive ...Fenix wrote:Nick - why would Professor Ford put herself into the spotlight if it were not true ?
People cheat and lie all the time - you don't have to go beyond cycling to see some shining examples of dishonesty - for all sorts of different reasons.
So what are the reasons then ? What is the benefit she will gain ?
This isn't cycling - it's not the white lie that people have used 'No I'm not on anything' (more than the rest of them)
All i see is a massive invasion of her privacy and all sorts of attacks on her reputation. And for what ? A bit of Kudos ? She could have done a bike ride to get that.
No idea - whether she's telling the truth or is a plant - based on nothing more than my knowledge of teenage boys - I guess more the former.
No, this isn't cycling - but money is a great motivator. If I'd suggested to you that I'd pay you a significant sum to ride about on a deregulated ebike and snap up all the strava KOMs then you may be tempted (despite it being illegal to ride a deregulated ebike on the road) - provided the monetary reward was enough ... keep pedaling quite hard though - got to keep that HR up otherwise people won't believe you!
LOL - Somehow I think the amount of crap coming someone's way for a strava fraud wouldn't be quite the comparison compared to what Professor Ford will get.
I still don't see where the money is coming from to entice her up onto the witness stand ?0 -
Slowbike wrote:
Guilty court of law is not the same as "guilty" here - obviously ...nickice wrote:There are often people are quite obviously guilty who are found not guilty (OJ Simpson, for example) but the standard of proof for the Kavanaugh accusation is so low as to basically be a kangaroo court. There is no evidence except her testimony (which wasn't always credible. Everyone is forgetting the blatant lies about flying, for example).
the questions and allegations are testing his character ... from the limited bits I've seen I wouldn't trust him - but then, I don't need to and I haven't got the time or inclination to be an Internet Judge
They're not attempting to determine his guilt or otherwise. They are determining his suitability for one of the highest possible appointments in the US. It doesn't matter whether they think he has some dark past or they just don't like his shoes; it's just a question of whether they think he is suitable for the job. There is no standard of proof required.
As for whining about the Democrats being partisan, it was a nakedly partisan nomination. Unless Kavanaugh is a complete idiot, he will have been well aware that the Democrats would oppose his appointment. And if he was any good he would have prepared so that he could answer their questions without shouting and sobbing like a moody teenager.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
As far as I've read - Professor Ford has passed a lie detector test. I'd certainly believe her over someone who led a rowdy college life according to his own diaries - that he's tried to claim have far more innocent explanations than is likely.0
-
Fenix wrote:Slowbike wrote:No, this isn't cycling - but money is a great motivator. If I'd suggested to you that I'd pay you a significant sum to ride about on a deregulated ebike and snap up all the strava KOMs then you may be tempted (despite it being illegal to ride a deregulated ebike on the road) - provided the monetary reward was enough ... keep pedaling quite hard though - got to keep that HR up otherwise people won't believe you!
LOL - Somehow I think the amount of crap coming someone's way for a strava fraud wouldn't be quite the comparison compared to what Professor Ford will get.
I still don't see where the money is coming from to entice her up onto the witness stand ?
quite ... doesn't mean it isn't a possibility though ...
I'd do the strava thing - just under a different profile name 0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:Everyone is forgetting the blatant lies about flying, for example).
Really? That's the level that you're willing to call a blatant lie on her side? That she's scared of flying, but flies in planes anyway?
That she couldn't attend the hearing because she was afraid of flying. She flies all the time. This, of course, was probably an idea of her lawyer in order to delay the nomination.
"Ford said she had hoped to avoid traveling to Washington to testify. "I was hoping they would come to me, but I realized that was an unrealistic request," she said, referring to Senate investigators.
When told later by Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, that his staff would have flown out to her to get her testimony, Ford thanked him and said she wasn't aware that was an option. "
Which shows that Democrats don't care about Ford. They just care about delaying the nomination.0 -
nickice wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:Everyone is forgetting the blatant lies about flying, for example).
Really? That's the level that you're willing to call a blatant lie on her side? That she's scared of flying, but flies in planes anyway?
That she couldn't attend the hearing because she was afraid of flying. She flies all the time. This, of course, was probably an idea of her lawyer in order to delay the nomination.
"Ford said she had hoped to avoid traveling to Washington to testify. "I was hoping they would come to me, but I realized that was an unrealistic request," she said, referring to Senate investigators.
When told later by Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, that his staff would have flown out to her to get her testimony, Ford thanked him and said she wasn't aware that was an option. "
Which shows that Democrats don't care about Ford. They just care about delaying the nomination.
If you are saying they don't want a ridiculously partisan hack on the supreme court for the rest of his life, then you're right of course. A different nominee would probably have got through just with huffing and puffing, and probably with some Dem votes.
That doesn't mean she was lying about having a fear of flying.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:Everyone is forgetting the blatant lies about flying, for example).
Really? That's the level that you're willing to call a blatant lie on her side? That she's scared of flying, but flies in planes anyway?
That she couldn't attend the hearing because she was afraid of flying. She flies all the time. This, of course, was probably an idea of her lawyer in order to delay the nomination.
"Ford said she had hoped to avoid traveling to Washington to testify. "I was hoping they would come to me, but I realized that was an unrealistic request," she said, referring to Senate investigators.
When told later by Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, that his staff would have flown out to her to get her testimony, Ford thanked him and said she wasn't aware that was an option. "
Which shows that Democrats don't care about Ford. They just care about delaying the nomination.
If you are saying they don't want a ridiculously partisan hack on the supreme court for the rest of his life, then you're right of course. A different nominee would probably have got through just with huffing and puffing, and probably with some Dem votes.
That doesn't mean she was lying about having a fear of flying.
She was lying about not being able to attend due to a fear of flying. I have a fear of flying but I still fly. She is able to fly to go on holiday so she is able to fly to DC.
SC judges are appointed by politicians. Given he's already been declared guilty by the Democrats, he has a right to be angry with them.
And you're living in an absolute fantasy land if you think the Democrats would have voted for another nominee. They would have done everything they could do delay it.0 -
nickice wrote:And you're living in an absolute fantasy land if you think the Democrats would have voted for another nominee. They would have done everything they could do delay it.
What were the numbers for Neil Gorsuch?0 -
Nick I don't see where she says that she can't fly ?
"Ford said she had hoped to avoid traveling to Washington to testify. "I was hoping they would come to me, but I realized that was an unrealistic request," she said, referring to Senate investigators.
That's not the same as lying about flying. She's from America - you can't do much if you don't fly.
She (like you) dislikes flying and was hoping to avoid it. I bet you do the same ?
Why fly if you don't have to ? She's not a liar and you're coming across as someone pretty desperate to make her a liar.
What is this to you ?0 -
Meantime, listen to his answers about his yearbook entry. There are clearly embarrassing adolescent references to drinking but he lies about them. "Beach Week Ralph Club - Biggest Contributor" - is there anyone in the world naïve enough to think that is a reference to his having a weak stomach and not being able to eat spicy food like he said?0
-
KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:And you're living in an absolute fantasy land if you think the Democrats would have voted for another nominee. They would have done everything they could do delay it.
What were the numbers for Neil Gorsuch?
Gorsuch was a much less important appointment (politically speaking)0 -
rjsterry wrote:Slowbike wrote:
Guilty court of law is not the same as "guilty" here - obviously ...nickice wrote:There are often people are quite obviously guilty who are found not guilty (OJ Simpson, for example) but the standard of proof for the Kavanaugh accusation is so low as to basically be a kangaroo court. There is no evidence except her testimony (which wasn't always credible. Everyone is forgetting the blatant lies about flying, for example).
the questions and allegations are testing his character ... from the limited bits I've seen I wouldn't trust him - but then, I don't need to and I haven't got the time or inclination to be an Internet Judge
They're not attempting to determine his guilt or otherwise. They are determining his suitability for one of the highest possible appointments in the US. It doesn't matter whether they think he has some dark past or they just don't like his shoes; it's just a question of whether they think he is suitable for the job. There is no standard of proof required.
As for whining about the Democrats being partisan, it was a nakedly partisan nomination. Unless Kavanaugh is a complete idiot, he will have been well aware that the Democrats would oppose his appointment. And if he was any good he would have prepared so that he could answer their questions without shouting and sobbing like a moody teenager.
If no standard of proof is required any allegation can and will be made. I suggest you think a bit more deeply about what that will mean for the future of the Supreme Court.0 -
Fenix wrote:Nick I don't see where she says that she can't fly ?
"Ford said she had hoped to avoid traveling to Washington to testify. "I was hoping they would come to me, but I realized that was an unrealistic request," she said, referring to Senate investigators.
That's not the same as lying about flying. She's from America - you can't do much if you don't fly.
She (like you) dislikes flying and was hoping to avoid it. I bet you do the same ?
Why fly if you don't have to ? She's not a liar and you're coming across as someone pretty desperate to make her a liar.
What is this to you ?
I wouldn't. If I can fly to go back to Scotland (for a holiday) I can fly to testify. I certainly wouldn't need the help of my friends (if I already flew regularly.)
She's lying or her legal team are lying. They offered to send people to her to question her. She never got that information. My bet is that the no flying thing was a delaying tactic but that was scuppered when the information about sending investigators was released.0
