Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

No....I'm going based on the evidence, you are the one making assumptions in order to make those facts fit the narrative you wish was true. You hear that the permit was issued for the door in 2008 and your response was that maybe they got the permit in 2008 and didn't do the work till 2012.....I then explain that's not how permits work and you accuse me of making assumptions.

Sorry killer, no matter how much mental gymnastics you do there's no getting out of this one. Your girl lied, and there's no way the lie was accidental or a misremembering...it absolutely had to be intentional even if we don't know the reason she felt she had to perjure herself.

Also something that I didn't even go into was that the extra door essentially turned their home into a duplex and they rented out the extra room that the door led to mostly to Google employees who worked nearby. Her whole story was BS.

 

Hopefully one day, you'll realize that you are making assumptions about the facts and not sticking to just the facts. You do it frequently.

 

What assumptions have I made that aren't grounded in logic? I mean, in some ways it is an assumption to say that you are breathing right now, but that's a pretty solid assumption is it not?

At the same time, you are responding with assumptions that run counter to logic such as your theory that they got the permit in 2008 and waited till 2012 to get the work done.....and that the permit never expired in that time. You see how this is a problem right?

I know you desperately want to believe that the narrative you have bought into due to tribalism is accurate.....but you only harm yourself by being willfully ignorant. Open your eyes and take a skeptical look at things for half a second and you'll be forced to re-think your stance.

Or you could just bury your head deeper in the sand in order to cling to a false narrative.

 

I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying there are a number of possibilities all related to the evidence you presented that are different than the conclusion you assumed.

 

You have yet to name any plausible possibilities that would explain the facts away. What you did say was pretty ridiculous, so would you care to try again? Give me a plausible scenario where Dr. Ford wasn't lying if you can come up with one.

 

You will accept nothing because you've made up your mind. I'm not going to waste my time. I posted possibilities and I stand by them.

 

That's an excuse for you to not even attempt it because you know that you can't. You say that I've "made up my mind" but you are clearly talking about yourself. You desire for it to be true and you won't consider that the facts don't support it.

I've tried to steel man this and honestly I can't come up with a single plausible scenario where Dr. Ford wasn't intentionally lying based on the facts. The fact that permits void after 180 days if the work hasn't begun or if the work begins, the permit voids after 180 days if the work is suspended. There's simply no way that a permit obtained in 2008 could be used to do renovations in 2012 and that has to be the case for Dr. Ford's story to not be a lie.

I've given you the exact wording of the testimony, I've given you the Palo Alto, California building permit regulations....with those facts, you have to conclude that Dr. Ford was lying and there's no way she was doing so accidentally. She invented a false story about how the "attempted rape" story was initially mentioned in therapy. There's plenty of reasons why she might have lied about that, but there's no reason to go into that because all we're talking about is the mere fact that she lied and that she did know knowingly and intentionally......in short, she perjured herself.

 

There is no thing such as constitutional precedent. Im not sure why those like you keep beating that drum.

 

That is because people like you are against political activism unless its your team doing it.

Its one thing when you want your team to win so you can get your way. Its another to complain its wrong when it doesn't go your way but perfectly fine when your team does it. Thats called being a hypocrite. That applies to both sides. You extremist in both parties are making this country worse.

 

So it is your opinion that once the SCOTUS decides something that it is "settled law" and no other future case coming before them should ever change that decision?

 

The ability to think logically did.

 

Clearly the point sailed over your head.

It's not a battle over which party has more or less prominent domestic abusers/sexual abusers. Both parties are human institutions compromised of humans with many human failings. Scandals of all shades have been and will continue to be attributed to members of both parties.

The point is, and the problem for Democrats is, the Democrats have taken the extreme position that #WeBelieveSurvivors.

It's a Democrat led and inspired movement. Not a Republican one.

It's not #WeBelieveCredibleSurvivors or #WeBelieveSuvivorsWithCorroboratingEvidence.

It's #WeBelieveSurvivors. Period.

That stance is absurd and extreme and the recent movement around it was absurd and extreme. The mobs of people, the denunciations by Democratic members of Congress, the not allowing GOP members of Congress so much as to have freedom of movement. The violent and public cries of moral outrage and indignation.

That stance is going to quickly make Democrats look like hypocrites when Democratic scandals start occurring. And it already has.

It's pretty apparent though that it's only #WeBelieveSurvivors if it's politically advantageous. Democrats don't care about women. They care about using #WeBelieveSurvivors as a political cudgel.

Where are the #WeBelieveSurvivors folks when it comes to Keith Ellision, Deputy Chair of the DNC? Where? You won't answer. You can't answer.

You'll try and change the subject. "Oh we sacrificed Al Franken" - a politically calculated move which came at no cost to the DNC. If Wisconsin had had a Republican governor at the time Democrats sure as sh*t wouldn't have. You think this is some sort of moral currency. It's not. You don't get to say, "Well we gave one Al Franken so now we get to keep three Keith Ellisons."

 

Since 92% - 98% of the time they are correct believing the survivors it makes sense. You seem like you have a hard time dealing with extreme emotion. Sexual assault victims being accused of being mobs, not believed, and also attacked by people including the leader of the free world will tend to get emotional. Trump defended a man who abused two different wives. He called him honorable.

Women almost always believe the accusers because they experience the same crap. Some women pass it off as boys just being boys, but even they don't deny it happens.

Trump never believes it, and always sides with the people who have done it.

 

There's quite a bit of nuance when you get off the soapbox.

Although different than the Kavanaugh accusers, domestic abuse is terrible and should be treated seriously.

Apparently the accuser, Karen Monahan, has a video but is refusing to produce it to the authorities. Even her lawyer, who was the former boss of Ellison's Repbilican rival, hasn't seen the video. Eillison's behavior is also different than Judge Brett's in that he's cooperating with investigations and asked for a House Ethics Committee investigation. Doesn't mean there isn't shadiness (partisan groups handled the investigation rather than the DNC or federal authorities) or that he's squeaky clean, but the stakes are lower given that Ellison doesn't have a lifetime appointment, and it becomes more of a he-said she-said thing rather than a "mob" of accusers who were one time acquaintences of Kavanaugh.

If one claims to have evidence and then refuses to produce it, knowing that it could make or break your claims in public and civil opinion, that has a diminishing effect, doesn't it?

It wasn't only Franken. As mentioned, John Conyers had an earlier than expected retirement for being a creep.