"False charges, false accusations, horrible statements . . ."

1. 81

   Don Wposted 5 years ago

   Donald Trump said the allegations against Kavanaugh are:
   
   "False charges, false accusations, horrible statements that were totally untrue . . . "(1)
   
   Regardless of what you think of Trump (disclaimer: I think he's a buffoon) saying the allegations against Kavanaugh are "totally untrue", as if that's a matter of fact, is wrong.
   
   So I'd like any Trump supporters to either demonstrate Trump's statement is correct and the allegations are in fact false.
   
   Or
   
   Admit Trump was wrong to say the allegations were untrue as if that were a fact.
   
   I confess, this is a bit of an experiment. I'm starting to believe Trump supporters would not be able to admit to him doing or saying anything wrong. I'm hoping this thread proves me wrong.
   
   (1) https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/politics … index.html

   replyreport
   1. 0

      promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think anyone can prove the statements of Ford and the other two women were true or false. They remain allegations (building on Aime's point).
      
      But there are more concerns:
      
      1. Three women rather than one made the allegations. Multiple people who knew him said he was a blackout drunk. It's a pattern that raises major questions about his character.
      
      2. Kavanaugh's temperament as an SC justice is in serious doubt to the point where the ABA and 2,400 law professors opposed his nomination.
      
      3. His impartiality is gone. Blaming the Clintons for the allegations said a lot about his bias.
      
      4. Politicians on both sides are turning the highest court in the land into a partisan battleground. Its credibility is diving as a result.

      replyreport
   2. 81

      Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      For those who wanted clarity:
      
      We all agree no allegations against anyone were proven or disproven. So it's trivial for us to accept all allegations remain unproven.
      
      Trump did not say Ford's allegations are unproven. If he had, I would have no problem with that statement.
      
      He said Ford's allegations are not only "false", but also "totally untrue", as if he knows that for a fact.
      
      So I'd like a Trump supporter to either demonstrate that Trump's statement is correct and Ford's allegations are in fact false,
      
      Or
      
      acknowledge that Donald Trump was wrong to say Ford's allegation is "false" as if he knows it for a fact, because he doesn't know either way. The most he can reasonably say is that the allegations remain unproven.
      
      As I said, I'm starting to believe certain Trump supporters on HubPages are incapable of publicly admitting to Trump doing/saying anything wrong. I'm trying to disprove that belief by presenting something that most reasonable people would have no difficulty acknowledging.
      
      So far signs are not good, but I'll put that down to a need for clarity (I'm really trying to be  optimistic). Hopefully now people understand what I'm asking.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         So none of Trump's most ardent supporters are willing or able to say he got this wrong? Not one?

         replyreport
2. 60

   Live to Learnposted 5 years ago

   List your allegations. I don't believe Kavanaugh did anything untoward to Ford. Is that what you have a problem with? That's not supporting Trump.

   replyreport
3. 95

   wildernessposted 5 years ago

   Replace "untrue" with "unproven".  Does that change your question?  Is it all about (another) Terrible Trump Lie, or are you actually arguing that Kavanaugh is guilty of the accusations of Ford and don't like Trump disagreeing with you?

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Aime Fposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, there is an important distinction to be made between “unproven” and “untrue”.  One that I would hope a world leader would make, but I think most of us have adjusted our expectations from this world leader in particular.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Well, that was my question; is it all about Trump being careless with language (and therefore termed a liar again) or is it all about Ford's tale being true.  No answer as of yet.
         
         Yes, adjust them, for Trump will never meet your expectations of being PC, never be a statesman and will always run his mouth carelessly.

         replyreport
      2. 0

         promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         For some voters, no adjustments were necessary. His character was clear to us long before Putin got him into the Oval Office.

         replyreport
4. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago

   LOL, Don, you had hope?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Lol back at you. I suppose the only thing that will satisfy some is if we all agree evidence doesn't matter.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Trump's statement about Ford's allegations:  "False charges, false accusations, horrible statements that were totally untrue . . . "(1)
         
         If we all agree evidence does matter, then we will agree that Trump's statement is not factual.  He cannot possibly know whether the charges are true or false, so to state they are false is a lie.  He could state, "I believe the allegations are false" and that would be a perfectly acceptable statement of opinion.  That is not what he did, though.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Ok. That's a fair point. I think you're splitting hairs but it is a fair point.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Interesting. When others expressed the opinion that Ford's allegations are credible, especially given Brett K's evasive, defensive, and sometimes dishonest testimony, you labeled that a mob mentality bent on ruining a good man's reputation. When your President states that Professor Ford is a liar, and we call him on it, we are "splitting hairs."
               
               I do give you credit for acknowledging ours is a fair point, though.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Nothing about Ford's testimony struck me as credible. And, had she produced one piece of evidence or one credible source to corroborate I would have supported her. I do apologize, but if you claimed something happened, somewhere, somehow, and all the names you named said they had no idea what you were talking about I couldn't believe you and would suggest you get help.
                  
                  I found Kavanaugh's behavior not out of line with a person whose name was being smeared for what did look like political purposes. He isn't a politician and could be excused for being upset at being blindsided by a horrible accusation.
                  
                  I will say I get tired of everything, always, being tied to Trump. Had the tables been turned and Kavanaugh a Democrat and Ford a Republican I would have been disgusted with the Republicans,

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm not interested in rehashing the Ford/Kavanaugh hearing and who to believe.
                     
                     My point is the inconsistency in your attitude toward Trump's outright lie about Professor Ford ("splitting hairs" you say)  and others' opinions that Brett K evaded and lied under oath ("ruining a man's reputation" you say.)

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        My remarks are limited to my opinion of what brought this on. In my opinion Ford is a liar. This entire episode was orchestrated by a less than honest Democratic plot. You want to complain about Kavanaugh but appear to give free passes to others who should be ashamed of their behavior.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           "....but appear to give free passes to others who should be ashamed of their behavior."
                           
                           if you're referring to the nasty politics, I have previously stated I don't like it any more than anyone else. I also pointed out that the politics has no bearing on whether or not the allegations are true, allegations which were on the record as early as 2012, by the way.
                           
                           You call Ford a liar when you have no idea whether or not the allegations are true. You're entitled to your opinion, but you can't then bemoan other's similar opinions of Kavanaugh without being hypocritical.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              Without evidence to back up her claim, she can be seen as not credible. With overwhelming evidence that her allegations have no basis in fact she can reasonably be seen as lying.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 Isn't it fascinating how people can weigh a body of evidence and have differing conclusions?
                                 
                                 http://www.pollingreport.com/court.htm

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 60

                                    Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                    Could you please offer me one pieceof corroborating evidence for her allegations. I'm serious. One piece.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       The many statements she made to family, friends, her therapist, and a colleague, long before BK was a nominee, is considered corroborating evidence under the law.
                                       
                                       Kavanaugh hearings: What we get wrong about 'corroboration' and how it hurts survivors
                                       
                                       Christine Ford's Corroborating Evidence

                                       report
                                       1. 60

                                          Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                          Okee dokee. One person she named as witnesses at any point, who backs up her story. Let's do that.

                                          report
                                          1. 0

                                             PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                             Lol, you asked for just one piece of corroborating evidence. I gave you several and now you want to define "corroborating evidence" your way.
                                             
                                             I think I see a pattern here....

                                             report
                                             1. 60

                                                Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                I don't consider reiterated allegations as corroborating evidence because I've known many people who believe if they say something long enough it will have to be accepted as true. When I know it was a lie to start with.
                                                
                                                I know the idea appeals to the left. But, I will not think ill of another person without clear evidence.

                                                report
                                                1. 0

                                                   PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                   You're entitled to invent your own personal definition of corroborating evidence, no matter how foolish.
                                                   
                                                   Are you speaking of me or "the left"?
                                                   
                                                   I wasn't aware that "the left" agreed 100% on anything.

                                                   report
                                                   1. 60

                                                      Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                      I will give all people the same fair consideration, no matter their political leanings. I can't say the same for the left, not by recent observation.

                                                      report
                                                      1. 0

                                                         PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                         My goodness, why don't you have the courage to address that to me personally instead of couching your criticism in a broad, incorrect generalization of "the left"?
                                                         
                                                         You claim to give all people the same consideration regardless of political leanings and then prove yourself wrong in the same sentence by incorrectly generalizing about "the left."
                                                         
                                                         Wowza. LOL

                                                         report
                                                         1. 60

                                                            Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                            I am speaking of the left. If you fit the bill, that is your call. Not mine.

                                                            report
                                                            1. 0

                                                               PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                               Like I said before, even though you once vowed to stop generalizing about "the left," you continue to do so.
                                                               
                                                               I see you truly have no desire to stop. Carry on.

                                                               report
                                                               1. 60

                                                                  Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                                  I realize this shouldn't have to be said, in a sane society; but I didn't need your permission.

                                                                  report
                                                                  1. 0

                                                                     PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                                     Lol, I wasn't giving permission. I was merely acknowledging your obvious intent to continue stereotyping "the left" despite a previous statement of intent to stop doing so. Like I said, carry on.

                                                                     report
                                                                     1. 60

                                                                        Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                                        report
                                       2. 95

                                          wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                          I wonder why the FBI investigation did not agree.

                                          report
                                          1. 60

                                             Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                             Does that matter? As far as the left appears to be concerned guilt, at all costs, ignoring all else, is the only course allowed.

                                             report
                                          2. 0

                                             PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                             I wonder why the FBI investigation was so limited?

                                             report
5. 76

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   guilty until proven innocent.
   its horrible.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      He got on the Supreme Court, did he not? Unlike Clinton, who got impeached for something far less than allegations of gang rape.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Allegations which were immediately walked back. You are proving the point that this man's name was smeared.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            You misunderstand me. I'm saying he was innocent because he wasn't proven guilty, which is why he got on the court.
            
            Nor was he smeared because his accusers weren't proven guilty either. But a great deal of circumstanial evidence came out about his character, temperament and questionable past behavior.

            replyreport
            1. 67

               JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               But there was at least one eye witness perhaps another, who was 100% positive that Barf KavaNUT tried to rape her: That's enough to get a murderer convicted:

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Who?  You are the only person yet to make such a claim - who else has done so?

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Watch a re-run of the hearing and you'll find out: I don't have the time to explain the entire republican sham:

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        I watched it.  Your claim is (yet again) unsubstantiated by reality.  Not surprising, though.

                        replyreport
                        1. 67

                           JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           I would recommend that you watch it again because it's obvious you either missed it or forgot this sworn testimony by the eye witness under penalty of perjury: Maybe you grabbed a bag of cheetos in the kitchen during this stunning exchange:
                           
                           https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdRzajj4QcY
                           
                           "Eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony is the account a bystander or victim gives in the courtroom, describing what that person observed that occurred during the specific incident under investigation. Ideally this recollection of events is detailed; however, this is not always the case."

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              Except that the only person claimed to be an eyewitness said he did not recall ever attending such a "gathering" and certainly did not recall any attempted rape.
                              
                              Try again?  At least make up something that has at least a hint of being true?

                              replyreport
                              1. 67

                                 JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 Right, and murderers usually say they didn't do it but are convicted all the time with only one eye witness or even less corroborating evidence:

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 95

                                    wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                    You don't need witnesses to prove anything.  But you DO need evidence of some sort - when that evidence consists solely of the word of a child 30 years ago it isn't going to work.  Most people get that.

                                    replyreport
            2. 60

               Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Fair points. We can disagree on the gravity of his reaction but you have full right and reason to come to a different conclusion.

               replyreport