Keith Ellison

[fredtoast]

(12-17-2018, 09:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

My point obviously went completely over your head.

If a person is lying they are not going to add details that will make it harder to prove their lie is true.  If you are going to claim a person attacked you then you are not going to add additional witnesses to your story that you know will be 100% against you.  If she was lying she would have wanted to keep it to just "my word against his" instead of "my word against 2 of them".

[*bfine32*]

(12-17-2018, 10:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: My point obviously went completely over your head.

If a person is lying they are not going to add details that will make it harder to prove their lie is true.  If you are going to claim a person attacked you then you are not going to add additional witnesses to your story that you know will be 100% against you.  If she was lying she would have wanted to keep it to just "my word against his" instead of "my word against 2 of them".

You mean details like when it was, how I got there, how I got home? But none of that matters as long as you assert someone(s) was "there" that has 0 knowledge of the event.

Did the Ellison accuser provide any details?

Your point went over no one's head. All you have done is solidify the point made in the OP and with that your usefulness in this thread has run its course. 

[GMDino]

Isn't there another man on "the left" that bfine/ssf can use as an example where they were actually accused, evidence was presented and they were convicted so they can stop trying to defend Kavanaugh with this example? Or one that "democrats" defended and refused to believe the accuser?

Preferably one with a national spotlight on them like Kavanaugh had?

Because they are never going to admit being wrong all the way back in post 1:

Quote: Is it OK to beat women if you're a Democrat? Is it OK to not believe survivors if their attacker was a Democrat (I'm looking at you Bill Clinton). While obviously tongue in cheek the implications of this are rather disturbing

When no one said anything even remotely similar but rather looked at how both cases were handled and the differences between them?

[jj22]

(12-17-2018, 07:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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. 

Personally, the way yall treated Ford and the Trump accusers, I just don't take much stock in what you guys say on this subject. You guys can't defend and support Trump, who is the only one who has ever admitted to sexual assault (as well as defended Kav), and attack Ford the way yall did and then claim to be champions against sexual assault when a Dem is accused.

It just doesn't work that way outside of Trump World.

[fredtoast]

(12-17-2018, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You mean details like when it was, how I got there, how I got home? But none of that matters as long as you assert someone(s) was "there" that has 0 knowledge of the event.

I never said none of that matters.  Quit making strawmen and address what I actually said.

As I said before I can remember things that happened at parties when I was in high school, but I have no idea how I got to or from those parties.

[fredtoast]

(12-17-2018, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Did the Ellison accuser provide any details?

Just so we are clear here you have always assumed Ellison was innocent and you are upset that he was accused of something he didn't do, correct?

[jj22]

It makes sense Fred. They said throughout the Kav hearings we all remember what we were doing on 9/11 when the towers were struck because it was a traumatic experience. None of us remember what we were doing on 9/10 or 9/12 because those weren't traumatic days in our lives.

Of course Ford would remember something that happened to her 40 years ago, she was traumatized. You can't expect those that it didn't happen to to remember cause they weren't traumatized by it. But just because the GOP didn't call them as witnesses to testify under oath, it gives Trump supporters the out to claim there was no collaboration to her story. They think that line works but don't realize majority know you can't collaborate a story if you aren't called to testify under oath. Which would have settled all of it if Trump and Republicans thought Kav was innocent and wanted to prove it.

They try to hard to hold Dems accountable for sexual assault accusations but they've already exposed themselves for what they are by the attacks on Ford and support of Trump who no matter what any of us say, is the only man who has admitted to sexual assault.

So accusations aside. Assuming everyone accused is innocent. Only a certain group of people support an admitted sexual predator, so they can't be taken seriously on this subject.....

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-18-2018, 10:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: Isn't there another man on "the left" that bfine/ssf can use as an example where they were actually accused, evidence was presented and they were convicted so they can stop trying to defend Kavanaugh with this example?  Or one that "democrats" defended and refused to believe the accuser?

You're literally the only one in this thread talking about Kavanaugh.  Desperate spin is desperate.

Quote:Preferably one with a national spotlight on them like Kavanaugh had?

Bill Clinton?  Oh, wait, he got away with his abusive behavior too, and you defend him.

Quote:Because they are never going to admit being wrong all the way back in post 1:

I suppose someone would have to make a cogent point about how OP is wrong before people will consider admitting it was wrong.

Quote:When no one said anything even remotely similar but rather looked at how both cases were handled and the differences between them?

The talking point has been, and continues to be, "we believe survivors (see plural).  Clearly that mantra is selective in it's implementation.  You are a perfect example of this, you rail against Kavanaugh (again, you're the one who brought him up) and defend Ellison and Clinton.  You don't believe their accusers because you prefer the politics of these particular abusers.  I get why you're so desperate to smear the point made in OP, failing that you'd actually have to face your ugly hypocrisy and that would take moral courage you appear to lack.  Now post a lame gif and pretend you made a counter point.  

[GMDino]

(12-18-2018, 11:37 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're literally the only one in this thread talking about Kavanaugh.  Desperate spin is desperate.

You brought up his accusation in the first post without mentioning his name by talking about the Cruz harassment incident.

You can continue to deny that is what you meant but it make you look wro....er, well that word you can't bring yourself to use here.

Also I am not "literally" the only one talking about Kavanaugh. Even your friend is in an attempt to show that a man accused and about to be named to a lifetime position on the supreme court is the same as a person running for office in MN and the lack of similar "coverage" means "the left" is hypocritical.

For a man of such a large vocabulary you seem to have used that word wro....uh, not in the right way.

(12-18-2018, 11:37 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Bill Clinton?  Oh, wait, he got away with his abusive behavior too, and you defend him.

You brought him up. Now find the post where I defended him and didn't say he should have stepped down from office. Any post. I double dog dare ya.

Otherwise you might have use "that word" again.

(12-18-2018, 11:37 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I suppose someone would have to make a cogent point about how OP is wrong before people will consider admitting it was wrong.

You asked a question was clearly answered. Yet you and, how you say "those like you" continue to try and prove that democrats only believe one side and not the other based purely on politics.

Again...you are dangerously close to having to use the "W" word...only about yourself.

(12-18-2018, 11:37 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The talking point has been, and continues to be, "we believe survivors (see plural).  Clearly that mantra is selective in it's implementation.  You are a perfect example of this, you rail against Kavanaugh (again, you're the one who brought him up) and defend Ellison and Clinton.  You don't believe their accusers because you prefer the politics of these particular abusers.  I get why you're so desperate to smear the point made in OP, failing that you'd actually have to face your ugly hypocrisy and that would take moral courage you appear to lack.  Now post a lame gif and pretend you made a counter point.  

Again sir I have not "defended" anyone other than to examine the differences in the cases and how the evidence was and was not produced.

To paraphrase: I get why you're so desperate to defend the point made in OP, failing that you'd actually have to face your ugly hypocrisy and that would take moral courage you appear to lack. 

Hopefully my sincere answers to your misguided interpretation will be met with legitimate answers and not more, how you say, "smears".

[BmorePat87]

(12-18-2018, 11:37 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're literally the only one in this thread talking about Kavanaugh.  Desperate spin is desperate.

Your post to start the thread referenced Cruz being harassed for supporting Kavanaugh and Fred and Bfine have been engaged in a back and forth regarding Ford and Ellison's accuser. It's very disingenuous to suggest no one but Gmdino is talking about Kavanaugh. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-18-2018, 11:50 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Your post to start the thread referenced Cruz being harassed for supporting Kavanaugh and Fred and Bfine have been engaged in a back and forth regarding Ford and Ellison's accuser. It's very disingenuous to suggest no one but Gmdino is talking about Kavanaugh. 

Sorry, dude not remotely.  The point of OP, which I sincerely thought was rather clear, is that the mantra for the left is "we believe survivors" (plural).   OP is about how that belief appears to be selectively applied.  Yes, Cruz was harassed by those people during the Kavanaugh, but the important part, in regards to this thread, is the sentiment they were expressing during the harassment.  This sentiment was not applied to Ellison, hence the thread and this is why the thread is not about Kavanaugh any more than it's about Bill Clinton, it's about a sickening double standard perfectly exemplified by GMDino.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-18-2018, 11:48 AM)GMDino Wrote: You brought up his accusation in the first post without mentioning his name by talking about the Cruz harassment incident.

No, I brought up the sentiment expressed by the people harassing him.  You don't even understand the premise of the thread.

Quote:You can continue to deny that is what you meant but it make you look wro....er, well that word you can't bring yourself to use here.

Again, reading comprehension you lack. (best read in Yoda voice)

Quote:Also I am not "literally" the only one talking about Kavanaugh.  Even your friend is in an attempt to show that a man accused and about to be named to a lifetime position on the supreme court is the same as a person running for office in MN and the lack of similar "coverage" means "the left" is hypocritical.

Apologies, you're the one who brought him up, prompting others to speak on him as well.

Quote:For a man of such a large vocabulary you seem to have used that word wro....uh, not in the right way.

I'm sure that sounded clever in your head.

Quote:You brought him up.  Now find the post where I defended him and didn't say he should have stepped down from office.  Any post.  I double dog dare ya.

How many times have I asked you if you believe the Clinton accusers?  Numerous times and you always refuse to answer.  In regards to Ellison, you certainly haven't said anything about believing his accuser or demanding he step down in this thread, which would be a rather apropos place to dfo so.  Matt has the moral courage to do just that, you do not.  Or please feel free to do so now.  

Do you believe Ellison's accuser and think  he should resign his office?  

Quote:You asked a question was clearly answered.  Yet you and, how you say "those like you" continue to try and prove that democrats only believe one side and not the other based purely on politics.

Again...you are dangerously close to having to use the "W" word...only about yourself.

You clearly answered the thread's topic?  I find that difficult to believe as you've demonstrated you don't even know what the thread is about.

Quote:Again sir I have not "defended" anyone other than to examine the differences in the cases and how the evidence was and was not produced.

To paraphrase: I get why you're so desperate to defend the point made in OP, failing that you'd actually have to face your ugly hypocrisy and that would take moral courage you appear to lack. 

Again, please put up then, do you believe Ellison's accuser and believe he should step down.  As for defending the thread's premise, you'd have to actually know what it is to make this accusation. 

Quote:Hopefully my sincere answers to your misguided interpretation will be met with legitimate answers and not more, how you say, "smears".

You using the word sincere is worth reading this entire "response". 

[GMDino]

(12-18-2018, 12:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sorry, dude not remotely.  The point of OP, which I sincerely thought was rather clear, is that the mantra for the left is "we believe survivors" (plural).   OP is about how that belief appears to be selectively applied.  Yes, Cruz was harassed by those people during the Kavanaugh, but the important part, in regards to this thread, is the sentiment they were expressing during the harassment.  This sentiment was not applied to Ellison, hence the thread and this is why the thread is not about Kavanaugh any more than it's about Bill Clinton, it's about a sickening double standard perfectly exemplified by GMDino.

Sure thing dude! 

(12-18-2018, 12:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, I brought up the sentiment expressed by the people harassing him.  You don't even understand the premise of the thread.




Again, reading comprehension you lack. (best read in Yoda voice)



Apologies, you're the one who brought him up, prompting others to speak on him as well.



I'm sure that sounded clever in your head.




How many times have I asked you if you believe the Clinton accusers?  Numerous times and you always refuse to answer.  In regards to Ellison, you certainly haven't said anything about believing his accuser or demanding he step down in this thread, which would be a rather apropos place to dfo so.  Matt has the moral courage to do just that, you do not.  Or please feel free to do so now.  

Do you believe Ellison's accuser and think  he should resign his office?  






You clearly answered the thread's topic?  I find that difficult to believe as you've demonstrated you don't even know what the thread is about.





Again, please put up then, do you believe Ellison's accuser and believe he should step down.  As for defending the thread's premise, you'd have to actually know what it is to make this accusation. 



You using the word sincere is worth reading this entire "response". 

A lot of time and words to say you were wrong (but won't admit it) about me and my answers as well as the answers of almost everyone else who showed you exactly why you were wrong in your original premise.

I'll let you and bfine continue on with your little theme 'cause you're never going to admit it's wrong.

Wrong. 

[BmorePat87]

(12-18-2018, 12:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sorry, dude not remotely.  The point of OP, which I sincerely thought was rather clear, is that the mantra for the left is "we believe survivors" (plural).   OP is about how that belief appears to be selectively applied.  Yes, Cruz was harassed by those people during the Kavanaugh, but the important part, in regards to this thread, is the sentiment they were expressing during the harassment.  This sentiment was not applied to Ellison, hence the thread and this is why the thread is not about Kavanaugh any more than it's about Bill Clinton, it's about a sickening double standard perfectly exemplified by GMDino.

You made that point by citing an incident where Ted Cruz was harassed by protestors for his support of Brett Kavanaugh. If you didn't intend to have Kavanaugh play a role whatsoever, that's fine.

But regardless of your intentions, Fred and Bfine have also been referencing his allegations for multiple pages, so your "literally" statement is literally wrong. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-18-2018, 11:50 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Your post to start the thread referenced Cruz being harassed for supporting Kavanaugh and Fred and Bfine have been engaged in a back and forth regarding Ford and Ellison's accuser. It's very disingenuous to suggest no one but Gmdino is talking about Kavanaugh. 

From what I've seen Dino is the only one talking about the man Kavanaugh (aka defending him). I have brought up Fred's hypocrisy for burden of doubt given the 2 situations, but that's more to do with other's morals, than those of the parties involved.

What is it you guys say..........It's nuanced. 

[fredtoast]

(12-18-2018, 11:31 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Just so we are clear here you have always assumed Ellison was innocent and you are upset that he was accused of something he didn't do, correct?

?????????

[*bfine32*]

(12-18-2018, 07:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: ?????????

Sure, I've always assumed Ellison's innocence. I have mused at the double-standard of outrage at times. 

[GMDino]

(12-18-2018, 01:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You made that point by citing an incident where Ted Cruz was harassed by protestors for his support of Brett Kavanaugh. If you didn't intend to have Kavanaugh play a role whatsoever, that's fine.

But regardless of your intentions, Fred and Bfine have also been referencing his allegations for multiple pages, so your "literally" statement is literally wrong. 

Some people can't admit they even made a mistake...even for clarity.  It must be how everyone else is reading what they wrote.

It's sad and it damages the conversations around here.

[BmorePat87]

(12-18-2018, 06:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: From what I've seen Dino is the only one talking about the man Kavanaugh (aka defending him). I have brought up Fred's hypocrisy for burden of doubt given the 2 situations, but that's more to do with other's morals, than those of the parties involved.

What is it you guys say..........It's nuanced. 

So when SSF said "talking about Kavanaugh" he actually meant "defending him". 

:andy:

[fredtoast]

(12-18-2018, 06:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have brought up Fred's hypocrisy for burden of doubt given the 2 situations, but that's more to do with other's morals, than those of the parties involved.

What is it you guys say..........It's nuanced. 

There is no hypocrisy in my position.