Keith Ellison

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-17-2018, 03:43 PM)jj22 Wrote: So this lady is to be believed while the lady whose life was ruined for having the courage to stand in front of congress and testify under oath was lying?

Except no one said that.  Are you talking to yourself again? 

Quote:Only Trump supporters think that makes much sense. You guys do yourselves no favors.

Hey Dill, here's that tactic, again, you know the one you claim you've never seen.

[jj22]

You can clearly see in this thread Trump supporters don't believe Ford, and believe this accuser. Now what exactly are you trying to jump tough with me over again?

But thank you for admitting you believed Ford. Now I have to question your character for believing her and supporting the appointment of Kav to such high position as SCOTUS given what you believe he did....

Sounds like you have some explainin to do, and I'm here for it. I'll wait.....

[fredtoast]

(12-17-2018, 12:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If we're being fair, and I would hope we would be, we'd have to admit that the woman accusing Ellison did release evidence corroborating her abuse.  You are correct that she didn't release the video she claimed she had, but it would be wholly incorrect to say she provided no evidence to back her claim.

One provided all the info she had.  Another claimed to have info that would prove she was telling the truth and refused to release it.

That is the difference.

(12-17-2018, 12:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Btw, it's interesting that you phrased it as her having to prove she wasn't lying.  I guess we know which side of the "we believe survivors" line you fall on.

I should hope so.  We have talked about it for many pages in the Kavanaugh thread.

[fredtoast]

(12-17-2018, 02:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't asked was she lying or not. I asked what made MS Ford's accusation to be less likely a lie. 

One lied about having evidence that she really did not have.

In my book that makes her more likely to be lying.

[fredtoast]

(12-17-2018, 01:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, Fred believes Ford's story. Does that make him a witness?

I don't believe either woman had enough evidence to punish the accused.  

From the beginning I was more likely to believe Ford's story because of the fact she included Kavanaugh's friend in the story, and liars don't usually include other parties that will swear against them.  If she was lying then why would she include the third party?

I am less likely to believe Ellison's accuser because she lied about having a video.

I base my opinions on facts, not party affiliation.  And I don't pick sides without hearing some evidence first.  During the Kavanaugh/Ford debate all I was saying was that she was entitled to an investigation of the allegations.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-17-2018, 03:50 PM)jj22 Wrote: You can clearly see in this thread Trump supporters don't believe Ford, and believe this accuser.

I don't recall seeing anyone in this thread who voted for Trump.

Quote:Now what exactly are you trying to jump tough with me over again?

Jump tough?  That's an interesting colloquialism.

Quote:But thank you for admitting you believed Ford.

Odd that you think I said that or even inferred it as nothing stated by me in this thread would lead an intelligent person to this conclusion. 

Quote:Now I have to question your character for believing her and supporting the appointment of Kav to such high position as SCOTUS given what you believe he did....

I'll refer you above regarding this (deliberate?) mischaracterization.

Quote:Sounds like you have some explainin to do, and I'm here for it. I'll wait.....

Oh, I have no doubt you have nothing else to do.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-17-2018, 04:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: One provided all the info she had.  Another claimed to have info that would prove she was telling the truth and refused to release it.

That is the difference.

I think you meant to say she had more information than she already released.  She certainly had more physical, tangible, evidence than Ford did.  In any event, the woman supplied quite a bit of proof.  Why would you discount all of that proof simply because she didn't release even more proof?

Quote:I should hope so.  We have talked about it for many pages in the Kavanaugh thread.

Yes, you don't believe them without proof, got it.

[jj22]

So you don't believe Ford but do believe this accuser? Or you do believe Ford and do believe this accuser? Or you don't believe this accuser? Still trying to figure out how my initial comment on Trump supporters was wrong (hint: it wasn't).

(12-17-2018, 04:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't recall seeing anyone in this thread who voted for Trump.

Of course. No one voted for Trump let Trump supporters/defenders tell it. Somehow he won POTUS tho. "Interesting".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-17-2018, 05:17 PM)jj22 Wrote: So you don't believe Ford but do believe this accuser? Or you do believe Ford and do believe this accuser? Or you don't believe this accuser? Still trying to figure out how my initial comment on Trump supporters was wrong (hint: it wasn't).

I don't think Ford was lying, but I don't think you can take her story at face value.  She has no evidence and many of the people she claimed knew about it could not corroborate her claim.  I don't think Ellison's accuser is lying, and she has corroborating evidence that backs her claim.

Quote:Of course. No one voted for Trump let Trump supporters/defenders tell it. Somehow he won POTUS tho. "Interesting".

So someone is adjudged a Trump supporter by you therefore they must be lying about not voting for him?  With those kind of powers you should be out buying lottery tickets.

[jj22]

No powers. Just curious as to how the POTUS had no voters in the world (with the exception of the 1000 or so people willing to admit it).

Must have been those dead people voting. Talk about voter fraud.....

[*bfine32*]

(12-17-2018, 04:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: One lied about having evidence that she really did not have.

In my book that makes her more likely to be lying.

You don't know if she has the evidence or not; just that she didn't release it.  

Calling someone a liar is probably what's more likely that someone is lying in your book. 

[fredtoast]

(12-11-2018, 03:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Iirc she did provide medical documentation, and other evidence, of her injuries and the fact that they were incurred via domestic violence.  

(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.
 

The only people who refer to "anemia" as plural "injuries" in this case are from the right wing echo chamber.  So where did you get your info? 

(12-17-2018, 04:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why would you discount all of that proof simply because she didn't release even more proof?

Because she lied about having a video tape and there is absolutely nothing that links anemia to abuse other than her claims.

Once her credibility was ruined by the video tape lie then her other evidence crumbles.

[*bfine32*]

(12-17-2018, 04:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't believe either woman had enough evidence to punish the accused.  

From the beginning I was more likely to believe Ford's story because of the fact she included Kavanaugh's friend in the story, and liars don't usually include other parties that will swear against them.  If she was lying then why would she include the third party?

I am less likely to believe Ellison's accuser because she lied about having a video.

I base my opinions on facts, not party affiliation.  And I don't pick sides without hearing some evidence first.  During the Kavanaugh/Ford debate all I was saying was that she was entitled to an investigation of the allegations.

I was raped by Raquel Welch as a child and Fred was there. 

Folks will be more more likely to believe me now. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-17-2018, 03:50 PM)jj22 Wrote: You can clearly see in this thread Trump supporters don't believe Ford, and believe this accuser. Now what exactly are you trying to jump tough with me over again?

But thank you for admitting you believed Ford. Now I have to question your character for believing her and supporting the appointment of Kav to such high position as SCOTUS given what you believe he did....

Sounds like you have some explainin to do, and I'm here for it. I'll wait.....

I've only seen one side apply a degree of believably in this thread and it's because she mentioned witnesses that have no recollection of the event. 

[fredtoast]

(12-17-2018, 06:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You don't know if she has the evidence or not; just that she didn't release it.  

Why would she chose not to release it?  There is absolutely no good reason I can think of to explain her refusal to release evidence that would prove she is telling the truth.  

If she just wanted to keep it all quiet she would never have released her other evidence, so that is not the reason.

All I am doing is thinking like a judge or people on a jury.  They usually don't go through a lot of mental gymnastics to make the story fit their preconceived notions.  They are all going to think she is lying until she provides a reasonable excuse for.


It is absurd for her to cry about not being believed while withholding evidence that would prove she is telling the truth. 

[fredtoast]

(12-17-2018, 07:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I was raped by Raquel Welch as a child and Fred was there. 

Folks will be more more likely to believe me now. 

Yeah, I knew you would not have any logical explanation for that.

[*bfine32*]

(12-17-2018, 03:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Can't click links at work so I simply went by the investigation findings. I'll respond to you link about who knew and how they knew that Kavs sexually assaulted Ford later. Obviously if Ford has a witness the benefit of the doubt leans in her favor.

Oh hell, I just clicked on the link that was the woman a year or so ahead of DR Ford that mentioned in a FB post that the attack did indeed occur until pressed on it, then she said I don't know if it happened or not, but I remember hearing something about it.

Case closed; I don't even know why they continued with the investigation. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-17-2018, 07:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yeah, I knew you would not have any logical explanation for that.

Don't you remember being there? It was in a house. 

[fredtoast]

(12-17-2018, 07:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Don't you remember being there? It was in a house. 

If you are going to hide behind a joke when you can't directly refute my point at least try to make the joke fit my point.

If you are going to include me you have to do it in a way that would insure I deny your claim.  So you want to try again and implicate me somehow being involved in the rape.

[*bfine32*]

(12-17-2018, 08:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If you are going to hide behind a joke when you can't directly refute my point at least try to make the joke fit my point.

If you are going to include me you have to do it in a way that would insure I deny your claim.  So you want to try again and implicate me somehow being involved in the rape.

I'm just going with the Fred logic of involving a 3rd party makes it more believable; even if that 3rd party denies any knowledge. Seems that would make it less believable.

He said/ she said is 1 v. 1

He said/ she said/ third party identified denies any knowledge males it 1 v. 2

You are correct though I am making a joke. but it's at the expense of your burden of believably. 

And you wish you were involved in Raquel's rape of me, but you were just there in the house one summer in my home town.