Well, that certainly explains a lot.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I know the therapist’s notes don’t mention Kavanaugh anywhere. As far as I can tell, there’s no claim that she named Kavanaugh before she heard he was a potential Supreme Court judge.
Of course, it might not be him at all. Maybe Rolf Harris touched me when I was a teenager. Memories are so tricky…
Wow. Troubled teen, huh? Hope you can get the help you so obviously need.
You misunderstand. There are two claims here: one, that there is no record of any party attended by Ford and Kavanaugh; and two, that there is no record of Ford and Kavanaugh having attended a party together. The contention is that you’re slipping from one to the other as if they were the same.
In point of fact you can’t sensibly say that there is no record of a party that Ford and Kavanaugh attended, unless you can show that Ford did not attend any parties for which we have records. You can make claim 2, however: no documentary evidence from the time period states outright that the persons in question did attend a party together.
If you think that’s splitting hairs, note how much stronger claim 1 is – it’s saying that none of the parties anyone can point to as having occurred were attended by both Ford and Kavanaugh, which is clearly not something you can know.
He is. And he’s a mentally ill homosexual. So he’s a member of two groups that have historally done really well under fascist regimes.
When they come for him he’ll be yelling “but I’m a racist too!”. But I don’t think it’ll help.
Thanks for being even dumber than I realized.
Impressive bit of twisting of words there.
Oh, that was a joke. I get it. Where’s the funny part?
Well, singular, not plural, but point taken. Seeya. 
Bisexual, but apart from that, yes. We haven’t done that well under far-left regimes either, which is why I’m a radical centrist. Take your Sanders/Corbyn misogynistic “for the working man” bullshit just as far away as the Trump/Brexiter idiocy.
I am saying that none of the records say anything about a party attended by Ford and Kavanaugh. They are silent on the issue of whether such an event occurred. Therefore, they do not in any way corroborate Ford’s allegation.
Are you really trying to claim that I’m wrong about this, that the possibility that Ford attended a party but that her attendance (or the party as a whole) was not recorded by Kavanaugh, means that the absence of such a record somehow corroborates her statement?
What, did I miss where they said they remember it?
It’s not a joke. I have no idea what tape you are talking about that recorded the alleged party. I’ve heard no mention of such a thing, and can only think that you are imagining it. There must be some reason you believe Ford despite the lack of corroboration, and the principle of giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused.
They do not corroborate, but nor do they provide evidence against. Regardless, that’s not my point — consider this is an admonishment to take greater care when writing. If you don’t mean “there is no record of a party that Ford attended”, then don’t say “there is no record of a party that Ford attended” and act pissy when someone calls you out on imprecise language. Or can you really not distinguish between the two claims you’ve made at turns?
You are trying to parse a difference that may exist, but if it does it’s both irrelevant to my point and not one I intended to make.
There is nothing in Kavanaugh’s records that mentions Ford at all, whether at a party or otherwise. Indeed, there is no mention of a party that fits exactly with what she described. No-one, upon looking at Kavanaugh’s diaries and calendars, would have any reason to think that he ever met Ford. I can attempt to phrase it a few more ways if you like.
That is fact, now here’s the opinion part. Kavanaugh’s records were extremely thorough, by the standards of a teenager from the time. It seems likely to me that, had Ford been at one of the parties he attended, it would have been recorded. Yet, it wasn’t, and no-one but Ford has any memory of her being at any of them. In any other situation, the question would be closed, and everyone would assume Ford was misremembering.
Sexual assault, and the difficulty of proving it, is a major problem. But it is not one that can be solved by throwing out the usual rules of evidence, logic, and justice. The only reason to think Kavanaugh was ever even in a position to assault Ford is emotional reaction to their testiomony, and that’s not a good reason.
“Let’s go to the tape” is a figure of speech. In this case, it was in reference to the record of your posts.
.
This is the most asinine thing you’ve posted - and for you, given the high hurdle to clear the numerous incredibly stupid things you’ve said just in this thread - that’s saying a lot.
Well, considering that Steophan couldn’t spell “cat” if you spotted him the C and the A, I have no doubt that he’s okay with Kavanaugh being unfit and unsuitable for the position. After all, didn’t he vote for the guy who nominated Kavanaugh? And THAT guy is even more unsuited and unfit for his job.
No, I didn’t vote for Trump, I’m not one of those cursed foreigners interfering in your elections. But were I to have been able to vote then, I’d either have voted for Hilary despite great misgivings, or not voted for president at all. It’s looking likely that I’ll have a similar Hobson’s choice here in the next few months as the Brexit shambles limps on - between an insane and seiftly right-moving Tory party that is determined to leave the EU and damn the consequences, or an actual communist who might keep us in despite his actual beliefs. Or the third party I often vote for, that currently has a tiny share of the votes and is currently lead by a clueless man in his late 70s… Fun times.
As for Kavanaugh, his views alone should have kept him off the court. I’ve not seen anything about his performance in court, but if he acts like he did at the Senate hearing, that too should disqualify him. But, in the eyes of the only people who matter at this stage, the Senate, those things didn’t, so here we are. And an uncorroborated accusation of a misdemeanour decades ago should have no bearing either way.
I completely failed to get that, fair enough.
So, you don’t believe it happened, but if it did, you think attempted rape of a minor is a misdemeanor?
My mistake. I thought you were American. Mea culpa