I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.

Bad optics, chapter infinity.

GrowlTowel said:

---

I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.

---

Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.

We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.

All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.

This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.

But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.

bubbadog said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.

---

Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.

We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.

All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.

This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.

But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.

---

This is interesting. You are able to wildly stretch reasoning (i.e. justify belief in something because she can't name a specific time but remembers the year) but can't believe she would make up something in spite of her repeated activism, professional background, and coaching from ultra-feminists. Sounds legit.

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.

---

Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.

We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.

All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.

This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.

But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.

---

This is interesting. You are able to wildly stretch reasoning (i.e. justify belief in something because she can't name a specific time but remembers the year) but can't believe she would make up something in spite of her repeated activism, professional background, and coaching from ultra-feminists. Sounds legit.

---

Like I said, it's counter-intuitive until you think about it. Hard-core partisans aren't even going to think about it. (If that describes you, feel free to stop reading now.)

And when you give it more than just a little passing thought, what seems utterly implausible is the conspiracy theory that she just decided to make it all up and expose her family to what they're going through now (and for the rest of her life, probably) simply because she wanted to derail Kavanaugh's nomination for political reasons.

bubbadog said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.

---

Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.

We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.

All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.

This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.

But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.

---

This is interesting. You are able to wildly stretch reasoning (i.e. justify belief in something because she can't name a specific time but remembers the year) but can't believe she would make up something in spite of her repeated activism, professional background, and coaching from ultra-feminists. Sounds legit.

---

Like I said, it's counter-intuitive until you think about it. Hard-core partisans aren't even going to think about it. (If that describes you, feel free to stop reading now.)

And when you give it more than just a little passing thought, what seems utterly implausible is the conspiracy theory that she just decided to make it all up and expose her family to what they're going through now (and for the rest of her life, probably) simply because she wanted to derail Kavanaugh's nomination for political reasons.

---

IMO, your reasoning is not counter-intuitive, it's counter common sense.

But, I'm happy to rest on my last argument.

Oh, and i did not vote for Trump. Not partisan. Would have voted for Gary Johnson if he was on the ballot in Oklahoma.

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.

---

Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.

We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.

All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.

This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.

But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.

---

This is interesting. You are able to wildly stretch reasoning (i.e. justify belief in something because she can't name a specific time but remembers the year) but can't believe she would make up something in spite of her repeated activism, professional background, and coaching from ultra-feminists. Sounds legit.

---

Like I said, it's counter-intuitive until you think about it. Hard-core partisans aren't even going to think about it. (If that describes you, feel free to stop reading now.)

And when you give it more than just a little passing thought, what seems utterly implausible is the conspiracy theory that she just decided to make it all up and expose her family to what they're going through now (and for the rest of her life, probably) simply because she wanted to derail Kavanaugh's nomination for political reasons.

---

IMO, your reasoning is not counter-intuitive, it's counter common sense.

But, I'm happy to rest on my last argument.

---

Simple question: If you were going to make up a story that you knew would be heavily scrutinized, and that your credibility would be an issue, wouldn't you specify what year it allegedly happened? If you're making it all up anyway, what does it matter if you say 1982 or 1983? What matter is that you make your lie as convincing as possible.

bubbadog said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.

---

Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.

We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.

All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.

This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.

But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.

---

This is interesting. You are able to wildly stretch reasoning (i.e. justify belief in something because she can't name a specific time but remembers the year) but can't believe she would make up something in spite of her repeated activism, professional background, and coaching from ultra-feminists. Sounds legit.

---

Like I said, it's counter-intuitive until you think about it. Hard-core partisans aren't even going to think about it. (If that describes you, feel free to stop reading now.)

And when you give it more than just a little passing thought, what seems utterly implausible is the conspiracy theory that she just decided to make it all up and expose her family to what they're going through now (and for the rest of her life, probably) simply because she wanted to derail Kavanaugh's nomination for political reasons.

---

IMO, your reasoning is not counter-intuitive, it's counter common sense.

But, I'm happy to rest on my last argument.

---

Simple question: If you were going to make up a story that you knew would be heavily scrutinized, and that your credibility would be an issue, wouldn't you specify what year it allegedly happened? If you're making it all up anyway, what does it matter if you say 1982 or 1983? What matter is that you make your lie as convincing as possible.

---

I would not and you may not and you may have trouble believing someone would. But, yes, I believe a hyper-partisan coached activist would. Or, at a minimum convert something like copping a feel into something way more dramatic. That's not hard to believe at all.

Let me ask you, if you are able to stretch justification to believe her, why are you not able to extend the same grace to Kavanaugh when he denies it?

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.

---

Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.

We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.

All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.

This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.

But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.

---

This is interesting. You are able to wildly stretch reasoning (i.e. justify belief in something because she can't name a specific time but remembers the year) but can't believe she would make up something in spite of her repeated activism, professional background, and coaching from ultra-feminists. Sounds legit.

---

Like I said, it's counter-intuitive until you think about it. Hard-core partisans aren't even going to think about it. (If that describes you, feel free to stop reading now.)

And when you give it more than just a little passing thought, what seems utterly implausible is the conspiracy theory that she just decided to make it all up and expose her family to what they're going through now (and for the rest of her life, probably) simply because she wanted to derail Kavanaugh's nomination for political reasons.

---

IMO, your reasoning is not counter-intuitive, it's counter common sense.

But, I'm happy to rest on my last argument.

---

Simple question: If you were going to make up a story that you knew would be heavily scrutinized, and that your credibility would be an issue, wouldn't you specify what year it allegedly happened? If you're making it all up anyway, what does it matter if you say 1982 or 1983? What matter is that you make your lie as convincing as possible.

---

I would not and you may not and you may have trouble believing someone would. But, yes, I believe a hyper-partisan coached activist would. Or, at a minimum convert something like copping a feel into something way more dramatic. That's not hard to believe at all.

Let me ask you, if you are able to stretch justification to believe her, why are you not able to extend the same grace to Kavanaugh when he denies it?

---

I've never said that I believe Kavanaugh is lying. He denies it, and I find his denials credible.

She alleges it, and I find her allegations credible.

I've laid this out elsewhere extensively. We may never know the truth of what happened. But there needs to be more examination of the claims followed by careful deliberation by the Senate.

bubbadog said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.

---

Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.

We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.

All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.

This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.

But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.

---

This is interesting. You are able to wildly stretch reasoning (i.e. justify belief in something because she can't name a specific time but remembers the year) but can't believe she would make up something in spite of her repeated activism, professional background, and coaching from ultra-feminists. Sounds legit.

---

Like I said, it's counter-intuitive until you think about it. Hard-core partisans aren't even going to think about it. (If that describes you, feel free to stop reading now.)

And when you give it more than just a little passing thought, what seems utterly implausible is the conspiracy theory that she just decided to make it all up and expose her family to what they're going through now (and for the rest of her life, probably) simply because she wanted to derail Kavanaugh's nomination for political reasons.

---

IMO, your reasoning is not counter-intuitive, it's counter common sense.

But, I'm happy to rest on my last argument.

---

Simple question: If you were going to make up a story that you knew would be heavily scrutinized, and that your credibility would be an issue, wouldn't you specify what year it allegedly happened? If you're making it all up anyway, what does it matter if you say 1982 or 1983? What matter is that you make your lie as convincing as possible.

---

I would not and you may not and you may have trouble believing someone would. But, yes, I believe a hyper-partisan coached activist would. Or, at a minimum convert something like copping a feel into something way more dramatic. That's not hard to believe at all.

Let me ask you, if you are able to stretch justification to believe her, why are you not able to extend the same grace to Kavanaugh when he denies it?

---

I've never said that I believe Kavanaugh is lying. He denies it, and I find his denials credible.

She alleges it, and I find her allegations credible.

I've laid this out elsewhere extensively. We may never know the truth of what happened. But there needs to be more examination of the claims followed by careful deliberation by the Senate.

---

I agree with you until careful deliberation causes a delay on a vote.

There was time for careful deliberation weeks ago when Feinstein declined to ask Kavanaugh anything about it . By waiting until the last second, Feinstein converted this into something hyper-political and IMO, threw the opportunity for careful deliberation out the window.

If careful deliberation was ever the intent of her party, they had a chance but declined it. Honestly, I don't believe careful deliberation is a thing to be attained at this point. By waiting, Feinstein converted it into something political.

Jack Bauer said:

---

riflebear said:

---

And people wonder why no one takes CNN or MSNBC seriously.

---

pardon my French, but what in the actual **** are you talking about?

---

Are u serious? No evidence. Witness admits she doesn't know Time place or how she got there and the two other witnesses have already denied it. Exactly how is this possible except Soros paying some other person to say they were there?

Every attorney I've seen already said this would not hold up in court and no one would even take this case now unless they just playing politics. Understand now? I feel dirty listening to Maddow she is pathetic with all her conspiracy theories.

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.

---

Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.

We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.

All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.

This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.

But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.

---

This is interesting. You are able to wildly stretch reasoning (i.e. justify belief in something because she can't name a specific time but remembers the year) but can't believe she would make up something in spite of her repeated activism, professional background, and coaching from ultra-feminists. Sounds legit.

---

Like I said, it's counter-intuitive until you think about it. Hard-core partisans aren't even going to think about it. (If that describes you, feel free to stop reading now.)

And when you give it more than just a little passing thought, what seems utterly implausible is the conspiracy theory that she just decided to make it all up and expose her family to what they're going through now (and for the rest of her life, probably) simply because she wanted to derail Kavanaugh's nomination for political reasons.

---

IMO, your reasoning is not counter-intuitive, it's counter common sense.

But, I'm happy to rest on my last argument.

---

Simple question: If you were going to make up a story that you knew would be heavily scrutinized, and that your credibility would be an issue, wouldn't you specify what year it allegedly happened? If you're making it all up anyway, what does it matter if you say 1982 or 1983? What matter is that you make your lie as convincing as possible.

---

I would not and you may not and you may have trouble believing someone would. But, yes, I believe a hyper-partisan coached activist would. Or, at a minimum convert something like copping a feel into something way more dramatic. That's not hard to believe at all.

Let me ask you, if you are able to stretch justification to believe her, why are you not able to extend the same grace to Kavanaugh when he denies it?

---

I've never said that I believe Kavanaugh is lying. He denies it, and I find his denials credible.

She alleges it, and I find her allegations credible.

I've laid this out elsewhere extensively. We may never know the truth of what happened. But there needs to be more examination of the claims followed by careful deliberation by the Senate.

---

I agree with you until careful deliberation causes a delay on a vote.

There was time for careful deliberation weeks ago when Feinstein declined to ask Kavanaugh anything about it . By waiting until the last second, Feinstein converted this into something hyper-political and IMO, threw the opportunity for careful deliberation out the window.

If careful deliberation was ever the intent of her party, they had a chance but declined it. Honestly, I don't believe careful deliberation is a thing to be attained at this point. By waiting, Feinstein converted it into something political.

---

Feinstein held back for the same reason the WaPo did: It was an anonymous allegation by someone who wished to remain anonymous. You don't move forward based on something like that -- at least you don't do so if you're behaving in a responsible way. (And if Feinstein was just being partisan, why didn't she play this anonymous accusation card back in August, when it probably could have done more damage?)

Feinstein waited until word leaked out about the existence of the letter before she turned it over to the FBI. In hindsight, maybe she should have done this sooner. But had she done so, she still would have been accused of playing politics.

Ford contacted WaPo's tip line in July but wouldn't go public. They wouldn't publish anything until she was willing to put her name behind it.

If the timing means that they have to delay the vote, then they have to delay the vote. I read that the FBI investigation of Anita Hill's claim took 2-3 days. So what if it takes another week or 10 days to get Ford to testify to the Senate?

Senate Republicans know there will be a political backlash from women if they appear to be pushing this through without careful consideration. Their desire to move forward quickly really isn't about not being able to get Kavanaugh confirmed before the mid-terms. It's about the fear that he WON'T be confirmed -- and then there won't be time to nominate and schedule hearings for someone else.

HuMcK said:

---

Bad optics, chapter infinity.

---

#fakenews as usual

bubbadog said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.

---

Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.

We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.

All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.

This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.

But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.

---

This is interesting. You are able to wildly stretch reasoning (i.e. justify belief in something because she can't name a specific time but remembers the year) but can't believe she would make up something in spite of her repeated activism, professional background, and coaching from ultra-feminists. Sounds legit.

---

Like I said, it's counter-intuitive until you think about it. Hard-core partisans aren't even going to think about it. (If that describes you, feel free to stop reading now.)

And when you give it more than just a little passing thought, what seems utterly implausible is the conspiracy theory that she just decided to make it all up and expose her family to what they're going through now (and for the rest of her life, probably) simply because she wanted to derail Kavanaugh's nomination for political reasons.

---

IMO, your reasoning is not counter-intuitive, it's counter common sense.

But, I'm happy to rest on my last argument.

---

Simple question: If you were going to make up a story that you knew would be heavily scrutinized, and that your credibility would be an issue, wouldn't you specify what year it allegedly happened? If you're making it all up anyway, what does it matter if you say 1982 or 1983? What matter is that you make your lie as convincing as possible.

---

Simple answer: Ford swears it was the summer of '82; Kavanaugh proves he spent that summer with his aunt and uncle in Vermont; Ford goes to prison for perjury.

It really is pathetic all these Dem Reps & Senators (many of them attorneys) assume guilt instead of innocent until proven guilty. They don't even know the facts of the case yet they play politics w/ it. Very dangerous.

Sam Lowry said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.

---

Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.

We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.

All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.

This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.

But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.

---

This is interesting. You are able to wildly stretch reasoning (i.e. justify belief in something because she can't name a specific time but remembers the year) but can't believe she would make up something in spite of her repeated activism, professional background, and coaching from ultra-feminists. Sounds legit.

---

Like I said, it's counter-intuitive until you think about it. Hard-core partisans aren't even going to think about it. (If that describes you, feel free to stop reading now.)

And when you give it more than just a little passing thought, what seems utterly implausible is the conspiracy theory that she just decided to make it all up and expose her family to what they're going through now (and for the rest of her life, probably) simply because she wanted to derail Kavanaugh's nomination for political reasons.

---

IMO, your reasoning is not counter-intuitive, it's counter common sense.

But, I'm happy to rest on my last argument.

---

Simple question: If you were going to make up a story that you knew would be heavily scrutinized, and that your credibility would be an issue, wouldn't you specify what year it allegedly happened? If you're making it all up anyway, what does it matter if you say 1982 or 1983? What matter is that you make your lie as convincing as possible.

---

Simple answer: Ford swears it was the summer of '82; Kavanaugh proves he spent that summer with his aunt and uncle in Vermont; Ford goes to prison for perjury.

---

https://giphy.com/gifs/2fs2I4ujlBf20

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

I feel sorry for her. She has waited her entire life to tell her fictional story but her handlers will not let her.

---

Think about it. If you had set out to tell a fictional story, you would profess certainty about the year it happened. You might not identity the specific home, because that could be investigated. But you would absolutely specify the year, because not doing so might make you seem less credible. So in a counterintuitive way, her not being able to pin down whether it was 1982 or 1983 makes it less likely rather than more likely that she just made it all up.

We have seen enough of these cases now to understand that girls and women commonly do not report sexual assaults at the time, especially when they involve an acquaintance or friend. Failure to report at the time does not mean they're lying. In this case, Ford's parents knew Kavanaugh's parents -- they were all solid Republicans -- and she feared that telling her parents would cause problems among parents in a status-conscious community.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can have very specific memories of an assault itself while being fuzzy about other details. Ford fits this pattern. It doesn't prove that her allegation is true. But neither should her vague recollection of other details mean that her account must be false.

We have seen enough other cases to know that women can carry the trauma of an assault for decades. What boys may shrug off as a drunken act and a rebuff that will be forgotten quickly, may torment girls for the rest of their lives especially if the victim remains silent. Whatever happened to Ford appears to have caused her a lot of suffering. She brought it up to her husband and in couples therapy. She told people about it right after Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and before Kavanaugh was nominated. She moved to the opposite coast from her home and never came back. She focused her psychology research on depression, anxiety and resilience after trauma -- and it's pretty common for women who have suffered such traumas and conditions to gravitate to a career where they try to better understand those conditions and to help others in similar situations.

All of these make it more believable that she would wait to go public when she did and that she wouldn't recall all of the details.

This does not mean that her story therefore must be true. And even if it's true, it may not be backed by enough evidence for people to believe that Kavanaugh should be disqualified based on her word vs. his.

But I don't believe for a minute that she simply decided to make it all up, and subject herself and her family to a living nightmare, for some political reason.

---

This is interesting. You are able to wildly stretch reasoning (i.e. justify belief in something because she can't name a specific time but remembers the year) but can't believe she would make up something in spite of her repeated activism, professional background, and coaching from ultra-feminists. Sounds legit.

---

Like I said, it's counter-intuitive until you think about it. Hard-core partisans aren't even going to think about it. (If that describes you, feel free to stop reading now.)

And when you give it more than just a little passing thought, what seems utterly implausible is the conspiracy theory that she just decided to make it all up and expose her family to what they're going through now (and for the rest of her life, probably) simply because she wanted to derail Kavanaugh's nomination for political reasons.

---

IMO, your reasoning is not counter-intuitive, it's counter common sense.

But, I'm happy to rest on my last argument.

---

Simple question: If you were going to make up a story that you knew would be heavily scrutinized, and that your credibility would be an issue, wouldn't you specify what year it allegedly happened? If you're making it all up anyway, what does it matter if you say 1982 or 1983? What matter is that you make your lie as convincing as possible.

---

Simple answer: Ford swears it was the summer of '82; Kavanaugh proves he spent that summer with his aunt and uncle in Vermont; Ford goes to prison for perjury.

---

https://giphy.com/gifs/2fs2I4ujlBf20

---

Uh, okay.

Democrat playbook. Soros pays and organizes protestors. Protestors get on liberal media where they replay it 24/7 which their liberal analysts then say is reason why America is against conservatives. Repeat

Honest question. Why does Bird (accuser) need all these high powered liberal activist lawyers to represent her if all she is doing is coming to testify about the truth that should take about 5 min to explain?

Republicans are screwing this up in the same way they did the Mueller fiasco by giving in to the media mob.

jklburns said:

---

---

Too bad our Keyser doesn't step up and do what is right.

Problem is Dems are treating this as a criminal investigation when this hearing has nothing to do w/ a criminal investigation. But just wait, by the end of the week they will go to the Maryland police and open an investigation. Guarantee they have already found someone in law enforcement who will take the case along w/ an attorney and judge.

jklburns said:

---

---

But Jinx said her gut instinct is that he is guilty...who needs actual evidence.

And you are probably a misogynist for posting this.

Ford's lawyer is now throwing the WITNESSES under the bus since nobody will corroborate her clients story. The basic premise is that no woman would make this up so she is telling the truth.

Wow - read this thread from the original tweet when you click on it. There are 10 tweets. Shocking, this is unraveling so fast and I hope Dems pay a huge price for these lies.

They need to just stop. This is making a mockery of real victims. Who knows, maybe she was attacked at a party at some point, but it obviously wasn't Kavanaugh.

riflebear said:

---

They need to just stop. This is making a mockery of real victims. Who knows, maybe she was attacked at a party at some point, but it obviously wasn't Kavanaugh.

---

When you are attacking your OWN witnesses...you have lost.