Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Alohameansgoodbye

Usa Thread

Recommended Posts

My best friend in LA is a therapist and she was a rape counselor in school. This link reiterates what she has said to me about sexual assault. The victims don't recount exactly. Also, its the same in pretty much every event. Witnesses to a crime have "consistent" testimony but not "exactly matched" testimony.  That said, she could have been making it up but the fact remains Republicans found her testimony credible. Finally, lets assume it didn't go down the way she said, the women they were lining up against Mueller weren't even there. Totally different context. They were paid to lie. The woman in the Kavanaugh matter wasn't.  She and Kavanaugh knew each other and at a minimum can be placed in the same place. This other woman regarding Mueller, no. Not the same. There is an argument for either side, its not conclusive she wasn't assaulted. An argument can be made for both sides, but with the Mueller accusation it was a total 100 percent fabrication.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180926-myths-about-sexual-assault-and-rape-debunked

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentle Folk, as a reading of this thread will show, none of the posts here support the Ford lady or other woman as being absolutely true.

The negative (to Trump/Kavanaugh) posts, concentrated on Kavanaugh's suitability as a candidate for the position.

I still maintain that he's not one, I would like in the position, t'were I an American.

If you wanna have a go, then I'd suggest that any woman (or man) that makes allegations of a sexual nature, with no evidence should be punished if, after investigation, there's nothing that can be found to support the claims. 

Particularly when there's a reward of some sort for the allegations, be it cash, fame, etc etc...

I was on a  jury some years back, when the man accused of molesting a young girl was found not guilty. The problem was, the girl could not present any proof, and her mother and brother were called as witnesses and they were stored of their faces, not one shred of evidence was offered, only the accusation and the NZ government payment of $5,000 if the claim was held up. The Jury thought he did it, just by the look of him, but could not convict him because there was no proof, only the allegation. Imagine how we felt, when after the Judge pronounced him not guilty, he turned to us and said the guy had been convicted of a like crime once before... But still, no evidence in this case.

I'll hazard that the #MeToo movement has ruined, more innocent men's reputations, than those reputations of men, who deserve such treatment. i.e. Weinstein and Cosby and Clinton, yes, but Nervous Dog and Coss, no...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quotes from Dr. Ford herself....note she was aware of the GoFundMe setup for her...

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-ford-sexual-assault-hearing/h_a265278e0752d4b7cb72476b8afd46fe

Christine Blasey Ford said she's not sure who paid for the lie detector test she took in August. Rachel Mitchell, who's asking questions for the Senate Republicans on the committee, asked her about it:

Mitchell: Did you pay for the polygraph yourself?

Ford: I don’t think so.

Mitchell: Do you know who did?

Ford: Not yet, no.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/27/ford_feinstein_gave_me_advice_on_attorneys.html

MILLER: You have a lot going on and you had that for several months. Is that your understanding someone else is going to assist you with some of these fees including the cost of your polygraph?

FORD: I'm aware there have been several GoFundMe to be sites that I have not had a chance to figure out how to manage those because I never had one.

MILLER: Several what?

FORD: GoFundMe sites that have raised money primarily for our security detail. I'm not even sure how to collect that money or how to distribute it yet. I've not been able to focus on that.

MILLER: In your testimony this morning you stated Senator Feinstein send you a letter on August 31st of this year. Is that right?

FORD: I sent her a letter on July 30th. I don't have the date. I would have to pull up my email to find a date of her email to me right before the hearings, that she was going to maintain the confidentiality of the letter...

MILLER: Between your polygraph on August 7th and your receipt of the letter from Senator Feinstein, did you or anyone on your behalf speak to any member of Congress or Congressional staff about these allegations?

FORD: I personally did not.

MILLER: My question was did you or anybody on your behalf?

FORD: What do you mean? Did someone speak for me?

MILLER: Was someone working with you, helping you, did somebody at your behest, on your behalf, speak to somebody in Congress or staff?

FORD: I'm not sure. I'm not sure how these exchanges went but I did not speak to anyone.

MILLER: Is it possible that somebody did?

FORD: I think so. It is possible.

Christine Blasey Ford Received More Than $190,000 in Donations During Her Testimony

http://time.com/money/5408908/christine-blasey-ford-received-more-than-190000-in-donations-during-her-testimony/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cavanami - are you stupid?  I've said that we've made no representations that Ford nor any other woman was truthful or other wise, why are you trying to present a position on her truthfulness?

 

You are like the guy who says, after I walk in the room and say nothing, "It wasn't me I didn't fart".

Well no one asked you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gofundme was 'during' her testimony. There is a huge difference between paid to make things up. She made the allegations way before the supreme court nomination. They were brought up again for the Kavanaugh nomination. That is not the same as Mueller's issue. Its a totally different context. I am NOT saying she lied about the assault. Only those that were there know the real truth. But its apples and oranges from the Mueller fake charges. Totally different. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another synagogue defamed https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-synagogue-defaced-anti-semitic-graffiti-235055352.html?.tsrc=fauxdal&fbclid=IwAR0C71KwKBxcG08guf1gum6lGPyiUNGHBc1Zk3BAFXX4Rhrp_34qlcOR99U

Eventually these white supremacists would go after Jewish targets. It's a natural progression. The buzz term '"globalist"' was already explained by Ann Coulter. This is a common Fox News term. Although they slowed its use after Coulter exposed why they were using that term.

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/ann-coulter-tweetstorm-targeting-globalist-jews-sparks-outrage-1.5890157

White evangelicals support Israel to the hilt.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/14/half-of-evangelicals-support-israel-because-they-believe-it-is-important-for-fulfilling-end-times-prophecy/?utm_term=.725f2e471d87

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/over-6-000-pro-israel-evangelicals-to-march-in-jerusalem-parade-1.6510569

Not because they have any love for Jews but because they see Israel as a nation as fulfilling biblical prophecy in Revelations (which doesn't end well for Jews). Israel has to be a nation so that the anti Christ can come and the armageddon can happen. I grew up with a church deacon dad so I know the story well. What remains to be seen is how the the evangelicals will respond and these are white evangelicals. Black baptists have a 'complicated' history with American jews as well as Catholics so its not from the latter where AIPAC's support is coming from AIPAC is the most powerful lobby in America and they will blame Trump for it. 

It gets murky because Trump is moving the embassy to Jerusalem, openly anti Palestinian like no other President ever so its a conundrum for American Jews as well as Evangelicals. What will they do? Especially if this continues? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, those great irrelevant memes. I wasn't aware anyone was opposing immigration. Why can't the lefties get it through their thick skulls that ILLEGALS are being opposed?  It's the same difference as between an honorably discharged veteran and a military deserter. Deserters do not get veteran's benefits.

And as to Ivana's citizenship, that usually follows the father - not the mother. I was surprised to learn that American women who married a foreign national once lost their citizenship! I discovered that when I ran across my grandfather's cousin applying to have her citizenship restored, since she was now a widow. She had been married to a Brit.  This act apparently has ever been repealed, though it is just sort of ignored nowadays.

"The Cable Act of 1922 (ch. 411, 42 Stat. 1021, "Married Women's Independent Nationality Act") was a United States federal law that reversed former immigration laws regarding marriage. (It is also known as the Married Women's Citizenship Act or the Women's Citizenship Act). Previously, a woman lost her US citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to US citizen men who married foreign women. The law repealed sections 3 and 4 of the Expatriation Act of 1907."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_Act

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×