Jokes1 min ago
It's A Very Scary Time For Young Men In America, Do You Agree?
186 Answers
https:/
Yes I know Trump said it, but please don't turn this into yet another anti-Trump thread, please address it on the fact that if one is a man (no matter of what nationality) one can be deemed guilty until proven innocent.
Yes I know Trump said it, but please don't turn this into yet another anti-Trump thread, please address it on the fact that if one is a man (no matter of what nationality) one can be deemed guilty until proven innocent.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
woofgang
/// naomi et al ...just a reminder of what Ed said recently "play the ball not the man" ///
Perhaps you should have directed your criticism toward Peter Pedant, who was the first to ignore the Spare-Ed's request.
/// AOG is banging his drum but is officially asking us proles not to ( bang our own drums) some
hope ///
/// AOG old fella - instead of agonising and asking why oh why
can you think about the things you post ? ///
/// naomi et al ...just a reminder of what Ed said recently "play the ball not the man" ///
Perhaps you should have directed your criticism toward Peter Pedant, who was the first to ignore the Spare-Ed's request.
/// AOG is banging his drum but is officially asking us proles not to ( bang our own drums) some
hope ///
/// AOG old fella - instead of agonising and asking why oh why
can you think about the things you post ? ///
Seems the FBI agree with me and the more cogent ABers.
https:/
Being older doesn't make one more intelligent, necessarily, just more experienced.
https:/
Being older doesn't make one more intelligent, necessarily, just more experienced.
AuntLydia. Well I'm sorry for making such an assumption, and I am of course sorry that after all something like this happened to you. It's a shame that you turned it into a competition about whose memory is better, and -- as can be seen from another member's experiences -- how memory works is not universal, at the very least.
andy-hughes
/// I am not making an 'anti-Trump' observation here, as per the OP request, but it shrieks with irony that one of the most misogynistic boorish ignorant badly behaved chauvinist bullies ever to draw breath, is suddenly deciding that the world is a 'scary place for men'. ///
/// It's not scary Mister President - unless you behave in a way that makes it so - and clearly you do, so you should be right to be
scared. ///
/// And if your sons carry your genes, and you have educated them in your appalling treatment of women, then yes, they should be scared too. ///
Well you certainly had a good try, even bringing his sons into your ramblings.
Please in future I would be most obliged if you would honour any future similar requests, you know just in order to keep threads on track, something that you yourself are always instructing others to do.
/// I am not making an 'anti-Trump' observation here, as per the OP request, but it shrieks with irony that one of the most misogynistic boorish ignorant badly behaved chauvinist bullies ever to draw breath, is suddenly deciding that the world is a 'scary place for men'. ///
/// It's not scary Mister President - unless you behave in a way that makes it so - and clearly you do, so you should be right to be
scared. ///
/// And if your sons carry your genes, and you have educated them in your appalling treatment of women, then yes, they should be scared too. ///
Well you certainly had a good try, even bringing his sons into your ramblings.
Please in future I would be most obliged if you would honour any future similar requests, you know just in order to keep threads on track, something that you yourself are always instructing others to do.
Here is a copy of a report by a veteran sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell to the Senate.
I may have to split it into two posts.
In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For
the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.
•In a July 6 text to the Washington Post , she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”
•In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”
•Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school
summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not
explain.
•A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the “summer of 1982.”
•Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not
turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.
•While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year.
Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.
•No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
•No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
•Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a
potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.
•In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive. When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.
•Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a
“sexual assault”beforethey were married.
•But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage.
•She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.
Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account.
•She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.
•She does not remember how she got to the party.
•
She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that
house was located with any specificity.
•Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her
house.
oHer inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
oShe told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
oShe also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
oDr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she did not look like she had been attacked.
oBut she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.
I may have to split it into two posts.
In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For
the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.
•In a July 6 text to the Washington Post , she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”
•In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”
•Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school
summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not
explain.
•A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the “summer of 1982.”
•Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not
turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.
•While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year.
Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.
•No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
•No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
•Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a
potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.
•In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive. When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.
•Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a
“sexual assault”beforethey were married.
•But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage.
•She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.
Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account.
•She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.
•She does not remember how she got to the party.
•
She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that
house was located with any specificity.
•Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her
house.
oHer inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
oShe told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
oShe also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
oDr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she did not look like she had been attacked.
oBut she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.
AOG - // Please in future I would be most obliged if you would honour any future similar requests, you know just in order to keep threads on track, something that you yourself are always instructing others to do. //
You start a thread about President Trump's observations about men's abhorrent behaviour - I post a response about the supreme irony that one of the biggest offenders against common courtesy towards women is talking as though he has the right to advise anyone.
That's about as on-track as you can get - and you don't get to direct responses to your questions in advance, people can and will post as they wish.
You start a thread about President Trump's observations about men's abhorrent behaviour - I post a response about the supreme irony that one of the biggest offenders against common courtesy towards women is talking as though he has the right to advise anyone.
That's about as on-track as you can get - and you don't get to direct responses to your questions in advance, people can and will post as they wish.
Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as
having attended—including her lifelong friend.
•Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh who attended the party— Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser (née Ingham). Dr. Ford testified to the Committee that another boy attended the party, but that she could not remember his name. No others have come forward.
•All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “[s]imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”
o Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had
suddenly disappeared
Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.
•According to her letter to Senator Feinstein, Dr. Ford heard Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while she was hiding in the bathroom after the alleged assault. But according to her testimony, she could not hear them talking to anyone.
oIn her letter, she stated, “I locked the door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stairwell, at which point other persons at the house were talking with them.”
oShe testified that Judge Kavanaugh or Mark Judge turned up the music in the bedroom so that the people downstairs could not hear her scream. She testified that, after the incident, she ran into the bathroom, locked the door, and heard them going downstairs. But she maintained that she could not hear their conversation with others when they got downstairs. Instead, she testified that she “assum[ed]” a conversation took place.
•Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.
oAccording to the Washington Post’s account of her therapy notes, there were four boys in the bedroom in which she was assaulted.
oShe told the Washington Post that the notes were erroneous because there were four boys at the party, but only two in the bedroom.
oIn her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said “me and 4 others” were present at the party.
oIn her testimony, she said there were four boys in addition to Leland Keyser and herself. She could not remember the name of the fourth boy, and no one has come forward.
oDr. Ford listed Patrick “PJ” Smyth as a “bystander” in her statement to the polygrapher and in her July 6 text to the Washington Post , although she testified that it was inaccurate to call him a bystander. She did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyth’s.
Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.
•Dr. Ford struggled to remember her interactions with the
Washington Post.
oDr. Ford could not remember if she showed a full or partial set of therapy notes to the Washington Post reporter.
She does not remember whether she showed the
Post reporter the therapist’s notes or her own summary of those notes. The Washington Post article said that “portions” of her “therapist’s notes” were “provided by Ford and reviewed by” the Post . But in her testimony, Dr. Ford could not recall whether she summarized the notes for the reporter or showed her the actual records.
She does not remember if she actually had a copy of the notes when she texted the Washington Post
having attended—including her lifelong friend.
•Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh who attended the party— Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser (née Ingham). Dr. Ford testified to the Committee that another boy attended the party, but that she could not remember his name. No others have come forward.
•All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “[s]imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”
o Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had
suddenly disappeared
Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.
•According to her letter to Senator Feinstein, Dr. Ford heard Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while she was hiding in the bathroom after the alleged assault. But according to her testimony, she could not hear them talking to anyone.
oIn her letter, she stated, “I locked the door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stairwell, at which point other persons at the house were talking with them.”
oShe testified that Judge Kavanaugh or Mark Judge turned up the music in the bedroom so that the people downstairs could not hear her scream. She testified that, after the incident, she ran into the bathroom, locked the door, and heard them going downstairs. But she maintained that she could not hear their conversation with others when they got downstairs. Instead, she testified that she “assum[ed]” a conversation took place.
•Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.
oAccording to the Washington Post’s account of her therapy notes, there were four boys in the bedroom in which she was assaulted.
oShe told the Washington Post that the notes were erroneous because there were four boys at the party, but only two in the bedroom.
oIn her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said “me and 4 others” were present at the party.
oIn her testimony, she said there were four boys in addition to Leland Keyser and herself. She could not remember the name of the fourth boy, and no one has come forward.
oDr. Ford listed Patrick “PJ” Smyth as a “bystander” in her statement to the polygrapher and in her July 6 text to the Washington Post , although she testified that it was inaccurate to call him a bystander. She did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyth’s.
Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.
•Dr. Ford struggled to remember her interactions with the
Washington Post.
oDr. Ford could not remember if she showed a full or partial set of therapy notes to the Washington Post reporter.
She does not remember whether she showed the
Post reporter the therapist’s notes or her own summary of those notes. The Washington Post article said that “portions” of her “therapist’s notes” were “provided by Ford and reviewed by” the Post . But in her testimony, Dr. Ford could not recall whether she summarized the notes for the reporter or showed her the actual records.
She does not remember if she actually had a copy of the notes when she texted the Washington Post
Thanks for the C&P job, Togo, although as far as I can see such discrepancies serve only to rule out the prospect of any criminal action. Very often, assaults take place that will not even make it to a courtroom, let alone have a hope of reaching a guilty verdict, for want of corroborating evidence. Standards for reaching legal verdicts are rightly very high.
We aren't talking about legal prosecution here. This is about the suitability to be a Supreme Court judge. In the one part of your C&P job you missed out, the prosecutor acknowledged as much.
We aren't talking about legal prosecution here. This is about the suitability to be a Supreme Court judge. In the one part of your C&P job you missed out, the prosecutor acknowledged as much.
That was only 4 pages of 9 Jim. Cannot be fagged with posting more but you can have the link. Sooo any accusation, even if it does not come close to being legally legitimate or fit for further scrutiny is to be taken as gospel, no matter how unhinged the accuser is or worthy up to the point of accusation the accused has been? As the original question aluded to, a very scary set of parameters are indeed being set. Wicked beyond belief, and contrived beyond believability for anyone with an ounce of common sense.
https:/
https:/
I think it's a bit much to say it's gospel. But, as I've mentioned already, I reached my conclusion after listening to both sides. And if Blasey Ford's story is lacking the credibility needed to secure a conviction, then Kavanaugh is just downright lying about his teenage years.
Notably, the prosecutor never got around to questioning Kavanaugh -- at least, not for very long -- because the Republicans abandoned all pretence and decided to rip into the Democrats for the remainder of the hearing, as well as ask some meaningless BS about whether or not Kavanaugh believed in God.
In the long run, I don't know what happened, if anything, in the early 80s. I *do* know that the account, and Kavanaugh's reaction to it, are enough to rule him out of being one of the top judges in America.
Returning to the original topic, I don't for the life of me see why it's a scary time to be a young man, unless you happen live a reckless life heavily affected by drugs, alcohol, and an unhealthy lack of respect for women and consent. And, frankly, if all that is true, then you deserve to be afraid.
Notably, the prosecutor never got around to questioning Kavanaugh -- at least, not for very long -- because the Republicans abandoned all pretence and decided to rip into the Democrats for the remainder of the hearing, as well as ask some meaningless BS about whether or not Kavanaugh believed in God.
In the long run, I don't know what happened, if anything, in the early 80s. I *do* know that the account, and Kavanaugh's reaction to it, are enough to rule him out of being one of the top judges in America.
Returning to the original topic, I don't for the life of me see why it's a scary time to be a young man, unless you happen live a reckless life heavily affected by drugs, alcohol, and an unhealthy lack of respect for women and consent. And, frankly, if all that is true, then you deserve to be afraid.
//an unhealthy lack of respect for women and consent. And, frankly, if all that is true, then you deserve to be afraid. //
Wrong Jim. A young man can have the utmost respect and exemplary behaviour towards women/girls, but if this is allowed to stand that means nothing if someone can make unfounded and malicious accusations safe in the knowledge that they will be taken as true no matter how contrived. Yes. Dangerous times ahead if this is allowed to become the yardstick of the future. Will men have to insist that they only want to work or socialise in an all male environment for fear of a slur some 30 years down the line?
Wrong Jim. A young man can have the utmost respect and exemplary behaviour towards women/girls, but if this is allowed to stand that means nothing if someone can make unfounded and malicious accusations safe in the knowledge that they will be taken as true no matter how contrived. Yes. Dangerous times ahead if this is allowed to become the yardstick of the future. Will men have to insist that they only want to work or socialise in an all male environment for fear of a slur some 30 years down the line?
// I post a response about the supreme irony that one of the biggest offenders against women is talking as though he has the right to advise anyone. // the immortal AH
I am glad that someone has noticed that president trump has jumped to the defence of someone accused of assault in the knowledge that HE himself may well be NEXT.
and that someone else has noticed that this is not and nevr will be a criminal process. It was never intended to be. Imagine the idea that a senate hearing serves only to clear applicants of any criminal liability !
Lord Chancellor Hogg ( not a US supreme court judge ) was deemed unsuitable for office - not because the old boy had raped anyone but because he was obviously ga-ga. The character of LC in Rumpole ( he hums and plays with paper clips) is meant to be based on the later Hogg. One quote in the paper 'Pontius was a pilot' - said to a journo. O god the old boy was out of it... oh dear this isnt attacking the man again is it?
I am glad that someone has noticed that president trump has jumped to the defence of someone accused of assault in the knowledge that HE himself may well be NEXT.
and that someone else has noticed that this is not and nevr will be a criminal process. It was never intended to be. Imagine the idea that a senate hearing serves only to clear applicants of any criminal liability !
Lord Chancellor Hogg ( not a US supreme court judge ) was deemed unsuitable for office - not because the old boy had raped anyone but because he was obviously ga-ga. The character of LC in Rumpole ( he hums and plays with paper clips) is meant to be based on the later Hogg. One quote in the paper 'Pontius was a pilot' - said to a journo. O god the old boy was out of it... oh dear this isnt attacking the man again is it?
//depends what they were doing 30 years earlier //
Wrong.....It doesn't, it depends on what a potential accuser wants to "disclose" 30 years later, for malicious reasons or for reasons of say mental ill health. If a spurious accusation demands a full blown enquiry and debate, no matter how ludicrous the accusation, and the results are innocent people being stigmatised, then it is folly of the highest order to justify such ploys all in the name of faux sympathy and "understanding".
Wrong.....It doesn't, it depends on what a potential accuser wants to "disclose" 30 years later, for malicious reasons or for reasons of say mental ill health. If a spurious accusation demands a full blown enquiry and debate, no matter how ludicrous the accusation, and the results are innocent people being stigmatised, then it is folly of the highest order to justify such ploys all in the name of faux sympathy and "understanding".
// it shrieks with irony that one of the most misogynistic boorish ignorant badly behaved chauvinist bullies ever to draw breath, is suddenly deciding that the world is a 'scary place for men'. ///
yeah I have been blarping my irony klaxon during all this
I liked the irony of - play the ball and not the man - so that counts out criticising one... Donald Trump.
yeah I have been blarping my irony klaxon during all this
I liked the irony of - play the ball and not the man - so that counts out criticising one... Donald Trump.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
News2 mins ago
Converting Bread Recipe To Bread...
Recipes5 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Jobs & Education14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.