He Said She Said...

Jump to Last Post 1-10 of 10 discussions (61 posts)
  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
    Sharlee01posted 10 months ago

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/14231636.jpg
    What happened to the "Scales Of Justice"?  Innocent until proven guilty...  If one were to take a breather and look at evidence or lack of evidence in the case the Dems have brought against Judge Brett Kavanaugh they might just realize Christine Blasey Fords allegations need further investigation. Yes, we have had six investigations on the judge, and a seventh currently underway. However, we know literally nothing about Ford, her childhood, her teen years, her pathway to adulthood. We do know all her social media has been scrubbed. We do know no friend, neighbors, family or coworkers have stepped up to support her character.  And yes, there have been many organizations have gathered signatures on petitions to offer support, none of which actually can actually say they know her personally.     We also know the people  Ford claimed were at the party where the alleges sexual attack took place one of which was a close friend, have given statements that they have no memory of such an event. We also know their statements hold a penalty of a felony for lying.   

    At the opposite end of the scales, we have the "Judge". He has led an exemplary life in the public eye. He has a long list of accomplishments and more than 65 women that have worked with him have stepped up to support his character. In 36 years  he has had no one accuse him of any form of abuse.  He has had not one scandal. He has not altered or scrubbed his social media. and has been investigated  6 times by the FBI. He has had a multitude of people step up and support his good character. People that are well acquainted with him.  He has a good record of supporting women in the workplace.  Many longtime friends as well of previous  " girlfriends" from his high school years have given interviews to give us an inside look at his high school years, and his behavior. None of which would make one conclude he would commit sexual abuse.

    After considering what facts we have on both sides, the scales tilt in favor of the judge.  What has become of innocent until proven guilty?  We have a preponderance of the evidence that supports Judge Kavanaugh's character,  while we have zero evidence to support  Dr. Ford's character. Her past is a mystery, it seems she has no one willing to step up and support her character, not even her husband? It all seems so very odd.  Hopefully, the FBI investigation will help bring clarification, and or answers.

    My question -  Which way do you think the scales are tipping?  And would you be personally comfortable in finding Kavanaugh guilty of sexual abuse with what we know so far?

    1. Live to Learn profile image83
      Live to Learnposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      No evidence has been offered to support the allegation. But, isn't that about 50% of the #metoo movement? They are raping and pillaging truth and justice.

    2. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Looks like he lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee while under oath. Doesn't matter what kind of life he's lead. That's a disqualifier for a Supreme Court judgeship.

      And while he's entitled to feel whatever emotion he feels, if he doesn't have the self-control necessary to rein that in during the interview for the job, that suggests he wouldn't be able to do so on the job itself.

      Having said that, I still think there's a chance he can be confirmed, because, yes, the current GOP is truly that awful.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Would lying also be a disqualifier for belief in the committee hearing?  Thinking of the fear of flying and didn't understand the committee offer to come to Ford.

        Or perhaps the anger shown is needed in today's climate of innuendo, talking around the topic, and faked outrage while posturing.  It was honest, it was real and came across much, much better than stupid questions like "Why won't you help us subvert the committee desires and ruin your life?".

        1. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          If Ford were applying to be a judge on the Supreme Court, and it was cleared she lied under oath, then yes it would be a disqualifier.

          Self-control is an important quality for a Supreme Court judge. His outburst indicates he doesn't have that quality.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Once again what did he lie about?

            1. Don W profile image82
              Don Wposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Kavanaugh said: "Dr. Ford's allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a longtime friend of hers".

              That's untrue. Patrick J. Smyth said he had "no knowledge of" the allegation of improper conduct. He did not refute Ford's allegation.

              Leland Ingham Keyser (Ford's friend) said she had "no recollection" of the incident, but did not refute Ford's allegation. She said she "believes" Ford.

              Kavanaugh is a federal judge. He knows the difference between refuted and uncorroborated. He lied when he said Ford's allegation had been refuted.

              And there is a long list of other things Kavanaugh was untruthful about, including the fact he claimed not to know about the Ramirez allegation until it appeared in the New Yorker. But text messages indicate he was in contact with his friends about the allegation before it was made public.

              As for the meaning of "devil's triangle" and "boofing". I'll leave you to look those up.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                Don,




                Smyth refutes Ford's allegation,   Full statement - " Smyth says in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."
                https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics … index.html

                A statement presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Saturday, Leland Ingham Keyser, a former classmate of Ford's at the Holton-Arms all-girls school in Maryland, said she doesn’t know Kavanaugh or remember being at the party with him.    "Simply 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,” lawyer Howard J. Walsh III of Bethesda, Md."
                Devil's Triangle has been around a very long time. It's a drinking game.

                A triangle of filled Dixie cups (Any number which forms an equilateral triangle) is set up on one end of a ping pong table with the shooter at the other end trying to bounce a ping pong ball into a cup. You bounce the ball into the cup and you get to choose which of the player's drinks. Boofing is passing gas at least it was when I was in college. My God, do you see what you are doing? Your more or less accusing someone of without any kind of proof.  This is all so ridiculous, and sad to see so many want to condemn a man that pretty much led a good honest life. Many of us have done things in high school that we may not be proud of.

                1. Don W profile image82
                  Don Wposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Not recalling is not the same as refuting.

                  Kavanaugh said all four people refuted Ford's allegation. They did not. He said something he knew to be untrue. That is, by definition, lying. He did it multiple times, to a Senate Committee, under oath. That should disqualify someone for elevation to the Supreme Court.

                  But I'm not arguing with you on this, nor on what those terms mean. You have previously made incorrect statements and insisted they are accurate when they are demonstrably not (remember the statements you made about the statutes of limitations in Maryland?) Did you ever accept those comments were factually incorrect? If not, that indicates you are unable to admit when you are wrong, which makes for a futile discussion.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    Hopefully, you have learned of Ford lying under oath? Fords boyfriend provided a sworn under oath letter which he said Ford coached another woman how to beat a lie detector test.  Your argument is on a poor choice of words? It is certainly not a  lie but could be looked at the as poor choice of a word...  Ford's credibility is in question she openly lied three times on the subject of coaching someone in how to beat a lie detector test. She lied about flying, and the door she had built into her home. The door was put in to give privacy to a renter.

                  2. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    I fully gave resources to substantiate my statement in regards to Maryland SOL that would have applied to Fords Allegation  In fact, over the weekend the police department where her alleged attack took place said they would look into her allegation if asked, but due to SOL that was in place when the crime occurred. they could not prosecute even if a crime had occurred. here is a good article that might clarify the SOL laws that would apply to Fords claim. I, as a rule, back up my comments with good resources.  It's not fair for you to make such a statement in regards to my comments not being accurate. I rely on facts.

                    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pu … dce63e11cd

                    I have added a youtube that shows  Ford lying to Congress in regards to lie detector test.  Her boyfriend has given a statement to Congress under penalty of a felony that Ford he witnessed Ford coaching a friend how to beat a lie detector test. She lied... Fact. Not a miss used word, not a statement that appeared given under stress. She answered four questions with great calm and lied... Ford should be investigated, as I said we know nothing about her... Nothing. She has no one hat actually is acquainted with her coming out to defend her or support her... Her very demeanor at the hearing was not normal.

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OFBBDuB7Q8

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            "If Ford were applying to be a judge on the Supreme Court, and it was cleared she lied under oath, then yes it would be a disqualifier."

            Didn't ask that, did I?  I asked if belief in her statement should be denied as a result of lying (what was the Latin term about lying in a testimony so don't believe any of it?)

            "His outburst indicates he doesn't have that quality."

            You saw an "outburst" because you can then say he isn't qualified to serve because he was angry with what had been done.  I saw a great speech, the kind our legislators need to be the recipient of.  Honest, truthful and revealing to the world the disgusting and reprehensible actions being taken.

            1. Don W profile image82
              Don Wposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              If you can demonstrate that Ford lied, of course the same standard applies.

              But flying does not contradict a fear of flying, so that's a non-starter.

              Likewise do you have proof that Ford perfectly understood whatever arrangements for the hearing were offered to her (or was even aware of all the options available to her)? She stated in her testimony that she would have "gladly hosted" Senate staff, which suggests she didn't/ wasn't. If you don't have any proof of that, then you have no reasonable cause to doubt her statements about it

              If it's wrong to assume Kavanaugh did what he is accused of, without being able to prove it, then it's wrong to assume Ford is lying without being able to prove it.

              Likewise, if it's okay to assume Ford is lying, without being able to prove it, then it's okay to assume Kavanaugh did what he is accused of, without being able to prove it.

              But you can't have it both ways.

              GOP will likely have it both ways though, and confirm Kavanaugh, such is the nature of the party it has become.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                "But flying does not contradict a fear of flying, so that's a non-starter."

                It does when you fly the number of times she does, and for no more reason than entertainment.  It absolutely contradicts it: she lied, plain and simple.  Consider that even if she is a little nervous of flying (fearful) it can't be that bad or she would jet around the world on vacation...yet can't make the same trip she already has made multiple times to continue the "civic duty" she started.  No, there was no real fear of flying.

                No, I have no proof of her not understanding, for I am not a mind reader.  Just a person listening to a PhD in psychology saying they didn't understand a very simple concept.  I will grant you that perhaps she didn't understand...because her attorneys did not tell her.  Which is just as bad, IMO.

                1. Don W profile image82
                  Don Wposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  No wilderness, flying (even a lot) does not contradict someone having a fear of flying.

                  If you can categorically prove Ford does not experience fear and anxiety before/ during each flight, go ahead. If not, then you cannot reasonably claim she is lying.

                  In contrast, Kavanaugh said multiple times the four people Ford named refuted her allegation. That is demonstrably untrue. He knew it to be untrue, and said it anyway.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    "No wilderness, flying (even a lot) does not contradict someone having a fear of flying. "

                    We will have to agree to disagree here.  One can be afraid of flying and still fly, but that fear cannot be great enough to cancel out on continuing ones civic duty when the flying that IS done is for vacations etc.  If the fear is great enough to cancel a Senate investigation then it is enough to cancel a vacation.

                    Yes, I know you wish to take a small exaggeration and blow it into a mountain.  It's being done every day with Trump; seems reasonable to continue it with Trump's nominee.  Personally I find the difference between "refute" and "deny knowledge of" to be minor enough not to hang a person for saying it.  Simply making note that it IS an exaggeration (or error, not sure) and not technically true is sufficient.

      2. profile image75
        Hxprofposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Don, the Democratic Senators weren't interviewing him, it was clear to anyone watching.  Kavanaugh was responding to something beyond legitimate questioning - many have stated, and I agree, that his anger was just.  For him NOT to get angry at what they were doing would have been almost inhuman.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          You're absolutely right - the Democrats weren't there to interview him.  They weren't there to search for truth of the allegation.

          They were there to posture and put on a pretty show of offering comfort and sympathy to Ford and to subject Kavanaugh to a mob hanging.

        2. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Christine Ford's anger would have been just too. No one would have blamed her for getting angry after what she's been through and is still going through. Yet she did not raise her voice in anger, or show hostility to anyone, nor engage in partisan criticism of one Party or another.

          She answered every question put to her, calmly and respectfully, even those that were intended to cast doubt on the veracity of her experiences.

          If an ordinary member of the public is capable of that, then a nominee for the Supreme Court should be even more so. I expect a judicial temperament from a Supreme Court judge, i.e. maturity, self-control, wisdom and a calm temperament. Kavanaugh demonstrated he does not have those qualities.

          That's why 500 law professors have signed a statement to the President saying: "Judge Kavanaugh did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land"(1).

          I agree with them.

          (1) https://www.scribd.com/document/3899861 … from_embed

          1. profile image75
            Hxprofposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Please.  Dr. Ford wasn't being crucified in front of the country.  Yes, it was hard for her to step forward, and she did so only after her letter was leaked.  But the treatment she received was, overall, kind and considerate, as it should have been. On the other hand, Democratic Senators have been nothing short of cruel to Kavanaugh - as wilderness pointed out above.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

            This letter from 500 law professors was passed via social media. I could have sighed it... LOL  Plus these are strangers. As I pointed out very odd no one, not a parent, not a husband, not a friend, not a coworker, not a neighbor...No one has come forward to support this woman.  So, you agree with a bunch of people that have no real insight into Ford. People that just sign a letter? Really? JK has had hundreds of people that he has worked with, friends that he has made throughout his life step up and give glowing references in regards to his character. He has had no one beside Ford make a claim of any form of sexual abuse or misconduct. Maybe time to take a breather and really look at the facts.

  2. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 10 months ago

    Sharlee ,  There are way too many holes in Prof. Fords testimony alone , Have you ever sat on a grand jury ?    Anyone that has ,has a very clear idea  about any one who has had  to answer too many times , " I do not remember " , Prof. Ford did that  over and over again .

    A very vague testimony about an extremely  serious charge , but I also felt that with  her  answers being so vague -- She then has absolute deniability in her testimony ----therefore not allowing any room for any repercussions if she  were lying in her overall statement .

    A Grand jury would determine  , "Your Honor , We need a lot more information , facts , dates ,  witness' , statements and time schedules to proceed" .    What so far has been presented is a redacted one page statement  and an extremely vague  and shady ,testimony before the very political senate committee .

    I have put this up before ;


    https://hubstatic.com/14231662.png

    1. Live to Learn profile image83
      Live to Learnposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      If she is proven to be lying, I hope she serves jail time. She's doing well, though. She's already made half a million. What a payday,

    2. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Guilty by an accusation. Does this growing concept shock you or make you uneasy? Does it make you wonder how some have clearly lost the ability to use innate common sense?  It's very evident as of today there is no clear evidence that Judge Kavanaugh did any of the things he is being accused of.  I think this is one of the evilest political stunts I have seen in my lifetime.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        An accusation of "Commie!  He's a commie!" used to be very effective in destroying lives.  Is it coming back, this time in the form of "Sexual abuser!  He's a sexual abuser!" this time around?

        1. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, and tomorrow he will be a racist... The circle goes around and around. You would think Dems would become tired of their everyday diet... LOL

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Hadn't though of that one, but you're right.  He will now be portrayed as a racist, drug dealing child abuser running a ring of young sex slaves.  Without evidence.

            1. IslandBites profile image87
              IslandBitesposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              child abuser running a ring of young sex slaves.  Without evidence.

              Sounds familiar...

              Who was accused of that? Who made the accusation? Uhm. Can't remember. roll

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                I find your correlation odd, and the incident you mentioned in regards to "pizzagate" was in no respect an allegation anyone with any common sense took seriously.  First, the persons that are making unfounded allegation are not a talk show rightwing jock...  They are our United States Senators, Congressmen, and Congresswomen. Many of them are contributing to smearing this JK by making unfounded statements to the media, and the media further reporting their unfounded statements. Each night for the past two weeks network news finds it fit to interview anyone with a story, none backed up with any form of facts.

                To address your ridiculous pizzagate smear. That story was not picked and talked about up by our government representatives or media, other than reporting how ridiculous the allegation was... Your correlation does not hold any weight in regards to what Dems are doing to JK. This man is being convicted in the public eye without any proof what so ever.

                Pizzagate -  Alex Jones, the Info-Wars rightwing host, was the one reporting that Hillary Clinton was sexually abusing children in satanic rituals a few hundred miles north, in the basement of a Washington, D.C., pizza restaurant. No one with any common sense believed that ridiculous account.

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                LOL  I had to read Sharlee's post and then google "pizzagate" to get a clue of what you were talking about - I had never heard of that.  No - I was just making stuff up and grabbing ridiculous accusations.  Nothing from history.

                1. IslandBites profile image87
                  IslandBitesposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Really? That's strange. It was a quite popular accusation, even here in the forums. Not the only one, btw.

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
    Kathryn L Hillposted 10 months ago

    Kavanaugh's mother was a judge. Did she really have so little influence over her son?
    There is no specific day or place. How can they go forward if these pertinent pieces of vital information are non-existent.
       

    Very Good Points:

    "However, we know literally nothing about Ford:
    HER childhood
    HER teen years
    HER pathway to adulthood
    HER friends, neighbors, family members and coworkers
    HER friend's Memories of the (so-called) party." S


    (what... five people is a party?

    no.

    More like a gathering ... and a small one at that.)

  4. Sharlee01 profile image85
    Sharlee01posted 10 months ago

    You have pointed something out that has been plaguing me for days. In a rape case, the accuser's background is under as much scrutiny as the accused. We know nothing about Ford.

    1. RJ Schwartz profile image90
      RJ Schwartzposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      But this isn't a rape case and I think they played it just like that.  If she made the more serious accusation of rape, then we'd expect to see much more activity around it, but thus simple groping accusation can be ginned up by the media to imply rape, but not really state it.  All they want to do was create a false narrative that could be a springboard for their stories.  Also it limits anyone on the Senate Committee from attacking her credibility outright (Why are you fighting against something so small Brett - what are you hiding, approach) 

      The one thing they didn't count on throughout this was the tenacity of Conservative News sites such as the Gateway Pundit, really digging into her life and bringing much of her past into the light.  The simple fact that her on-line presence has been scrubbed, updated, and sanitized for several months in advance of this event demonstrates a coordinated plan of attack.

  5. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 10 months ago

    Democrats and the news media by intimate association don't want you to hold these women's lives up to any real scrutiny ,  nor did Dr. Ford for that matter .    If these accusations had to hold water , we would all be soaking wet ?

  6. Live to Learn profile image83
    Live to Learnposted 10 months ago

    Then there's this.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/domest … awyer-says

    Similar scenario. He said, she said (but definitely more credible. For a Democrat, the woman is not believed, by democrats.

    What a bunch of immoral, see through hypocrites.

  7. Sharlee01 profile image85
    Sharlee01posted 10 months ago

    Just wondering what JK lied about under oath? Maybe missed something? In regards to his self-control. The FBI has done 6 background checks, he has been on the bench for 12 years, and if he in any respect he had a personal problem with self-control it would be evident.  So, not sure why you would be of the opinion that he could not control his emotions or have a problem with self-control?  I certainly feel he was appropriate at the hearing. He has the right to be heard, and his raw feelings deserve airing... I can't imagine how it would feel if I were wrongly accused of such a vile crime. I would think him odd if he did not become angry and emotional. This man has led an exemplary life and has every right to be angry.

    "Awful?" What the dems pulled with this candidate is downright evil.  Nothing surprises me in regards to how low they will stoop or that their followers will lap up. It's discouraging to watch, but not unexpected. I mean just look at what Dems can ignore because told to. Ted Kennedy leaving a woman to die at the bottom of a river...  Need I mention old Billy boy... LOL

  8. Sharlee01 profile image85
    Sharlee01posted 10 months ago

    Yes, it was very much talked about on social media.  But not even CNN or MSNBC bought into that smear.  They covered it for what it was a ridiculous story that was being spread by social media and far rightwing bloggers.

    1. IslandBites profile image87
      IslandBitesposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Not only on social media. You forgot the ridiculous story led a man to opened fire in the pizzeria (he was sentenced to 4 years).

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

        No, I did not forget about this man...  This man took it upon himself to commit a crime most likely due to reading this derogatory accusation online. Just goes to prove, sometimes these accusations that we hear online and from the media can trigger violence.  Accusations have consequences, sometimes. they destroy lives in their wake. I think one is innocent until proven guilty.

        1. profile image75
          Hxprofposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          "Accusations have consequences, sometimes. they destroy lives in their wake."  Yep, and so we're seeing with Kavanaugh, in part because Fine Fiend Held onto that letter for six weeks.  Geez, what a winner she is.

  9. IslandBites profile image87
    IslandBitesposted 10 months ago

    Let's see. You stated as a fact, what a person alleges because he has given a sworn statement.

    How come Ford testimony is not a fact for you? It was under oath, you know.

    Or Ramirez sworn statement. What about Swetnick, also sworn allegations? Or the, at least three ex Yale classmates statements?

    And what would you state as a fact now that Christine Ford's friend denies being helped on any polygraph test?

    You also said no one has supported Ford. Maybe you didn't know about four, guess what? sworn affidavits who say she told them before Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination that she had been sexually assaulted when she was younger, to some she mentioned his name, to other that it was a federal judge.They were released a day before the hearring.

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … on-hearing


    Where's GA? big_smile

    1. GA Anderson profile image93
      GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      He's hiding, but following. I had my say, and what has followed is just a bunch of stuff.

      Like an insistent alarm, every time I reach for the keyboard, my favorite Twain quote keeps popping to mind, and nudging me to just read and move on.

      You are on your own here.

      GA

      1. IslandBites profile image87
        IslandBitesposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        I wasn't asking for reinforcement. I just remembered your (CNN) quote, calling bias and so.  smile

        1. GA Anderson profile image93
          GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Well damn! And I was just about to 'suit' up too.

          But this does give me a chance to clarify something. When I said. "... what has followed is just a bunch of stuff. ," it sounded as if I was saying my word was the last word. What I intended it to mean was that what followed was mostly just more 'whataboutism' arguments.

          One more question would be; "What does if matter if something Blasey/Ford said could be thought of as a lie - what bearing does that have on whether Kavanaugh lied?

          GA

  10. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 10 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14236193.png

    It's all such a joke to question the morality issue .

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)