Keith Ellison

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-11-2018, 07:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: Evidence of something happening to her.  The evidence that "backed up her claim" was the video she said she had and her two other witnesses.  None of which was provided during the investigation.

I'm assuming that you would want to see more than just a bruise or an injury before you found someone guilty.

Wait, the evidence that backed up her claim were the physical injuries coupled with statements made at that time that Ellison abused her.  I wasn't aware that your burden of proof now extended to video evidence.  Also, I was informed by many that we're not trying to establish guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" as this is not a criminal trial.  I suppose that concept, like your selective outrage, remains highly mutable.

Quote:Oh!  So in your very first accusatory post when you mentioned Cruz and, well, let's just read what you wrote:

"We believe survivors" is, I believe, the key point.  Apparently such belief is highly selective as you so generously decided to represent.

Quote:First: "obviously tongue and cheek"     Great CYA there sir!

But anyway, when you brought up Cruz which "survivor" were you referring to?

I believe the quote was survivors.  Survivors is plural, survivor is singular.  So when a group claims to believe survivors (plural) they state that all women who claim to be abused should be believed.  Hence the people harassing Cruz were clearly not commenting on one particular person.  Well, it's clear if your understand the mechanics of the English language.

[/url]

Quote:[url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/25/politics/ted-cruz-heckled-restaurant-brett-kavanaugh/index.html]I bet it was Dr. Ford who accused Kavanaugh...even if you "didn't bring him up".  

I didn't, as explained above.

Quote:I put the hyperbole in bold in the statement I responded to.  I figured the hyperbole guy would be here to say something about it.  Maybe only Democrats use it in his view?

I don't think you know what hyperbole means.  maybe you just use the term when you have no other argument?  I can't say, but your understanding of the concept is clearly tenuous at best.

Quote:Or maybe it's just that you want to paint me as something with no proof so you just keep pounding a point until there is no point?  So you just keep bringing up Clinton?

I'm not trying to paint you as anything.  I've asked you on numerous occasions whether you believe the women who accused Bill Clinton of misconduct.  In every instance you have refused to answer.  If you're being painted you're also clearly holding the brush.

Quote:I certainly didn't expect him to find that you made a mistake or used hyperbole...no sir.  That would be like saying you were wro....well...let's just say not 100% right.  

Again, find an example and we can discuss right and wrong.  Thus far you have not done so.

Quote:The point of the matter is you wanted to accuse "democrats" of not treating Ellison the same as...well...you didn't "bring up" Kavanaugh but instead mentioned others being harassed for their view on accusers.  And, when shown that no one said Kavanaugh was guilty but wanted an investigation and that Ellison had an investigation and the evidence wasn't there, you turned it into...Clinton?  I dunno.  You're all over the place here.

I believe the point, which was clearly stated, was that "we believe survivors" clearly doesn't mean "we believe survivors".  I think this thread has more than adequately demonstrated that.  For that you have my thanks.

Quote:And I didn't vote for Ellison for AG of Minn.  So maybe we have members from there you were specifically looking for answers from?

I wasn't commenting on people voting for him.  I'm commenting on people who wouldn't call for his resignation due to his being credibly accused of beating a woman.

Quote:I'm sure you'll clearly explain yourself and how you were right and everyone leftists were wrong.  I'll wait patiently.

The only people arguing against my point in this thread are you and Fred (shocking I know!).  This hardly constitutes everyone.  Maybe you need to feel you're part of everyone in order to compensate for something?  

[GMDino]

(12-11-2018, 08:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wait, the evidence that backed up her claim were the physical injuries coupled with statements made at that time that Ellison abused her.  I wasn't aware that your burden of proof now extended to video evidence.  Also, I was informed by many that we're not trying to establish guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" as this is not a criminal trial.  I suppose that concept, like your selective outrage, remains highly mutable.




"We believe survivors" is, I believe, the key point.  Apparently such belief is highly selective as you so generously decided to represent.



I believe the quote was survivors.  Survivors is plural, survivor is singular.  So when a group claims to believe survivors (plural) they state that all women who claim to be abused should be believed.  Hence the people harassing Cruz were clearly not commenting on one particular person.  Well, it's clear if your understand the mechanics of the English language.

[url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/25/politics/ted-cruz-heckled-restaurant-brett-kavanaugh/index.html][/url]

I didn't, as explained above.



I don't think you know what hyperbole means.  maybe you just use the term when you have no other argument?  I can't say, but your understanding of the concept is clearly tenuous at best.



I'm not trying to paint you as anything.  I've asked you on numerous occasions whether you believe the women who accused Bill Clinton of misconduct.  In every instance you have refused to answer.  If you're being painted you're also clearly holding the brush.




Again, find an example and we can discuss right and wrong.  Thus far you have not done so.



I believe the point, which was clearly stated, was that "we believe survivors" clearly doesn't mean "we believe survivors".  I think this thread has more than adequately demonstrated that.  For that you have my thanks.




I wasn't commenting on people voting for him.  I'm commenting on people who wouldn't call for his resignation due to his being credibly accused of beating a woman.



The only people arguing against my point in this thread are you and Fred (shocking I know!).  This hardly constitutes everyone.  Maybe you need to feel you're part of everyone in order to compensate for something?  

Well if you want to say you brought up the Cruz incident but in no way meant Kavanaugh because you put an "S" on the end I guess you will never admit you were wrong.

Have a great night!  I'm sure someone will be along to agree with you too!

[*bfine32*]

(12-11-2018, 06:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: For once your memory is 100% correct.

And anyone who doubts bfine's memory can go back and look for themselves.  I was the one against taking sides before any sort of investigation.

I suppose my memory fails me when I look to find a dismissal of the Ford case similar to the one you gave this one.

Bottom line is both cases were investigated; one much more publicly because the Left wanted a circus, and both were found to lacking merit.

You can disagree with the assertion that there were different levels of #Ibeleiveher in the 2 cases, and further suggest very few Liberals believed Ford simply because she said so if you want. 

[GMDino]

(12-11-2018, 08:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose my memory fails me when I look to find a dismissal of the Ford case similar to the one you gave this one.

Bottom line is both cases were investigated; one much more publicly because the Left wanted a circus, and both were found to lacking merit.

You can disagree with the assertion that there were different levels of #Ibeleiveher in the 2 cases, and further suggest very few Liberals believed Ford simply because she said so if you want. 

One was also for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court the other was for a man running for office in Minn.  I mean that COULD be why one was more public than the other.

Luckily there are those "unbiased" people to keep all these investigation in the public eye! 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-11-2018, 08:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well if you want to say you brought up the Cruz incident but in no way meant Kavanaugh because you put an "S" on the end I guess you will never admit you were wrong.

I didn't put the "s" there, the people harassing him did.  Nice tap dance around all the other points made, I always know when you're thoroughly defeated when you resort to this kind of simple response to a detailed post.

Quote:Have a great night!  I'm sure someone will be along to agree with you too!

Maybe, maybe not.  I certainly don't have two people in lockstep with me, but I suppose that's the cost of being an actual individual instead of an ideologue. 

[GMDino]

(12-11-2018, 09:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't put the "s" there, the people harassing him did.  Nice tap dance around all the other points made, I always know when you're thoroughly defeated when you resort to this kind of simple response to a detailed post.

And I know when you won't admit you're wrong because you post an "I win" response like it matters.  All going point for point with you does is tie up a thread and get way off track.

You proposed a comment on all democrats "question" and it was answered.  You didn't like/believe the answer so now you want to argue about something else.

(12-11-2018, 09:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Maybe, maybe not.  I certainly don't have two people in lockstep with me, but I suppose that's the cost of being an actual individual instead of an ideologue. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-11-2018, 09:23 PM)GMDino Wrote:

And I know when you won't admit you're wrong because you post an "I win" response like it matters.  All going point for point with you does is tie up a thread and get way off track.

I see, addressing a post point by point is a way to get off track.  How very illuminating.

Quote:You proposed a comment on all democrats "question" and it was answered.  You didn't like/believe the answer so now you want to argue about something else.

I asked a simple question, one you apparently could not answer.

Quote:

Let's try this again, then.  Do you believe the women who accused Bill Clinton of misconduct?

[GMDino]

(12-11-2018, 09:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I see, addressing a post point by point is a way to get off track.  How very illuminating.



I asked a simple question, one you apparently could not answer.



Let's try this again, then.  Do you believe the women who accused Bill Clinton of misconduct?

We're you wrong when you said you "didn't bring up" Kavanaugh?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-11-2018, 09:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: We're you wrong when you said you "didn't bring up" Kavanaugh?

Apologies for the rudeness of answering a question with a question, did the Cruz harassers say Survivor or survivors?  As previously stated, survivors is plural, meaning you believe all women who have claimed to be abused.  Understanding this rather obvious point is somewhat important to grasping the point being made.  If you fail to understand simply say so so we can all move on.  My thanks to you for enabling this.

[BmorePat87]

I started the first thread on him. Seemed like she had some truth to her story if she was willing to mention recording in her texts with him months before.

Haven't really seen what happened since. I think the fact that he's AG of Minnesota and not on the national radar plays a huge role in the lack of attention. Look at Franken, it's not like people aren't going to go after Democrats who do this shit.

[*bfine32*]

Well I wonder when the Ellison accuser will be selected to present an award for Bravery?

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/christine-blasey-ford-makes-first-public-statement-post-kavanaugh-hearing-present-larry-nassar-accuser-award-153853731.html

But yeah, believing the accuser is pretty much the same Nationally in these cases.

[fredtoast]

(12-12-2018, 08:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But yeah, believing the accuser is pretty much the same Nationally in these cases.

Actually they are not being treated the same, and there is a reason for that.  One had evidence she refused to turn over.  It makes her seem more like a liar.

[fredtoast]

(12-11-2018, 08:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose my memory fails me when I look to find a dismissal of the Ford case similar to the one you gave this one.

I don't remember the Ellison case coming up around here before there was any investigation.  But if it did I know what I said.  I would have not picked either side until I heard the evidence.

(12-11-2018, 08:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Bottom line is both cases were investigated; one much more publicly because the Left wanted a circus, and both were found to lacking merit.

You are such a well trained parrot when it comes to the speaking points of the right.  One was a much bigger public affair because it was for a lifetime appointment for a seat on the United States Supreme Court while the other was for an elected state official.  Only those exposed to extensive use of these speaking points would fall for and repeat them so well while ignoring the obvious.

[*bfine32*]

(12-13-2018, 07:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually they are not being treated the same, and there is a reason for that.  One had evidence she refused to turn over.  It makes her seem more like a liar.

And one had 0 evidence and everyone refuted her story. But yeah, the other seems more likely the liar in your eyes.

When do you think the Ellison accuser will be asked to present an award for bravery? Because both of their cases have been dismissed with no merit. It is the same nationally after all. Or you can admit there's an obvious bias in the 2 issues.

[fredtoast]

(12-13-2018, 08:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And one had 0 evidence and everyone refuted her story. But yeah, the other seems more likely the liar in your eyes.

Yes, the one who refuses to cooperate looks more like a lioar.  That is the way it works in the real world.

(12-13-2018, 08:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: When do you think the Ellison accuser will be asked to present an award for bravery? 

When she cooperates with the authorities and goes through the high profile drama that Dr Ford did.  The fact that you don't even know her name and have to call her "the Ellison accuser" proves my point.  She refused to cooperate and was never subject to the public ridicule that Dr. Ford was.


When that happens I am sure she will get invited to present an award for bravery. 

[fredtoast]

(12-13-2018, 08:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  It is the same nationally after all. Or you can admit there's an obvious bias in the 2 issues.

It is not and has never been the same nationally.  One was for a lifetime appointment to the U S Supreme Court and the other was for an elected State position.

You have to live in an echo chamber to claim they should have both been treated with the same notoriety.

And, of course, one could not demand or expect any type of public hearing when she was refusing to cooperate.

[*bfine32*]

(12-13-2018, 09:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes, the one who refuses to cooperate looks more like a lioar.  That is the way it works in the real world.



When she cooperates with the authorities and goes through the high profile drama that Dr Ford did.  The fact that you don't even know her name and have to call her "the Ellison accuser" proves my point.  She refused to cooperate and was never subject to the public ridicule that Dr. Ford was.


When that happens I am sure she will get invited to present an award for bravery. 

OK, in Fred logic the one that chooses not to cooperate instead of the one that has everything she said has been refuted/ not supported, including from her best friend, "looks" more like the liar.  

The fact I don't know her name could mean she doesn't want it to be public. She probably should come out and say: I don't know when it happened, where it happened, how I got there, how I got back, ect... so you'd give her to more benefit of the doubt. Your assessment of which one is/seems more trustworthy was known before you even responded because you are the shining beacon of neutrality after all.  

[fredtoast]

(12-13-2018, 09:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: OK, in Fred logic the one that chooses not to cooperate instead of the one that has everything she said has been refuted/ not supported, including from her best friend, "looks" more like the liar.  

Her best friend said she believed her. More proof you live in an echo chamber.

And, again, yes, the one who claimed to have a video and did not is a liar.

[fredtoast]

(12-13-2018, 09:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your assessment of which one is/seems more trustworthy was known before you even responded 

This is a lie.

That is all you have since everyone can go back and see for themselves that you were the one who picked sides without knowing any evidence and I was the one who said I would not decide until I heard the evidence.

It is all there in black and white for everyone to read.  You picked sides with no evidence and I refused to.

So now you have no way to attack me other than to just make up blatant lies.  Your Donald would be proud of you.

[*bfine32*]

(12-13-2018, 09:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Her best friend said she believed her. More proof you live in an echo chamber.

And, again, yes, the one who claimed to have a video and did not is a liar.

Her best friend said she had no knowledge of the event that Ford claimed happened; aka refuted, but yeah, the fact she said she believed her makes all the difference to the beacon of neutrality. 

But feel free to join those that smear her:
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/407195-ellison-accuser-dems-smeared-threatened-isolated-me

Quote:"I've been smeared, threatened, isolated from my own party," Monahan tweeted. "I provided medical records from 2017, stating on two different Dr. Visits, I told them about the abuse and who did it. My therapist released records stating I have been dealing and healing from the abuse." 

Quote:"Four people, including my supervisor at the time, stated that I came to them after and shared the exact story I shared publicly, I shared multiple text between me and Keith, where I discuss the abuse with him and much more," she wrote. "As I said before, I knew I wouldn't be believed." 
She wrote that coming forward was a "huge piece of my healing." Monahan in the tweets tagged the Democratic National Committee and the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party.

If only she'd come forward.