Brett Kavanaugh may not be guilty of sexually assaulting Ford, and it may never be clear what happenend between the two of them, but he is FAR FROM INNOCENT.

Did you even watch the confirmation hearings? Brett Kavanaugh cried and sobbed his way through the entire thing. Emotional instability is not the hallmark of a person who is relied upon to make impartial life or death decisions regarding the fate of an entire country and its citizens.

He gave a 5 minute soliloquy on how he likes to drink beer. When asked how much is too much? He couldn't answer that, except a vague reference to a blood alcohol chart. "I don't know, whatever the chart says, blood alcohol chart". Which basically means he doesn't care about how drunk he gets or he doesn't think you can get too drunk.

His own drinking friends at Yale don't believe he should be elected. They say he drank to the point of blacking out and being stumbling drunk on numerous occasions, and that he lied while under oath.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-were-brett-kavanaughs-drinking-buddies-we-dont-think-he-should-be-confirmed/2018/10/04/923cf6ac-c821-11e8-b2b5-79270f9cce17_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4aa6b5f501f4

I call you Neil Boy when you make inane unsupported blanket statements like this, as you so often do.

Their sentences should be reduced as well. Smoking pot doesn't hurt anybody. Marijuana has many many therapeutic and medicinal effects. If your medicine was illegal, and somebody risked their ass to give it to you, should they be punished? That's what the current law does, is punish people who haven't done anything wrong. You can't go making blanket statements like disobeying the law is immoral. The law itself is immoral, which defeats the purpose of having laws to begin with.

I fully agree with bambam here. If drugs were legalized, or de-criminalized, that would take all the power away from the dealers and smugglers and criminal gangs that profit off of it. Drug use is nothing new in the history of humanity, and we've more than proved that the law and prison is not a proper deterrent. End the war on drugs. Gangs would fall apart, violence would plummet, and society would only benefit. Those people with addictions to drugs could then be treated openly, without fear or stigma.

Back to Kavanaugh, his own law school, Yale, practically disowned him. There is an open letter opposing his confirmation, written by Yale professors, law students, and the Yale community, that goes into detail why he should not have been confirmed.

Open Letter from Yale

Read it, and tell me Brett Kavanaugh is not partisan, and that he is impartial. Both are blatantly false. They detail specific judgements by Kavanaugh that prove he is not fit to be a member of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Brett Kavanaugh is just another one of the good ole' boys, getting wasted to the point of blacking out. For all we know, he did assault Ford but he can't remember it.

But hey, you guys elected Trump, so I'm probably just talking to a brick wall here.

If using drugs isn't wrong, why is distributing them? You're being hypocritical here.

They found 2000 people from a liberal state and liberal school that oppose a conservative being appointed to the supreme court?!

MY. GOD. It's unthinkable!

And Mr. K may actually be a complete D-bag. The problem is, liberals have played their hands so thin, nobody trusts them anymore. When they honestly write FRONT PAGE news such as "Trump gets two scoops of ice cream, everyone else gets one." on the SAME WEBSITE, it dilutes everything else they say.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/trump-time-magazine-ice-cream/index.html

And here's an ENTIRELY DEBUNKED (disceptively edited) video that NOBODY (at the MSM) HAS TAKEN DOWN OR CORRECTED yet: Trump "dumps" a box of food to feed the fish while the PM of Japan carefully gives them little bit a time. PROOF of how crude trump is! (omg, what? Really? That's your argument?)

Even Snopes and Politifact had to correct it:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-trump-impatiently-dump-fish-food-in-japanese-koi-pond/

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/nov/06/donald-trump-and-fish-food-dump-how-early-reports-/

Think about that when you realize only 30 percent of Americans identify as "progressive". It's because the other 70% know that the media lies non-stop and they've over-saturated and desensitized us so much, we don't even know or care when real news happens.

I have NO IDEA whether Mr K is a monster or not because I don't have 20 hours to sift through piles of bullsh-t to find out the truth. All I know is, I can't trust the media--and nobody else in the USA does either.

[edit] Allegro.CC ate my post.

I just ran stats on those signatures. There's only 891 signatures.

And almost TWO HUNDRED are from people... who haven't even graduated! Look at the numbers. They graduate ... in 20. 1920? My ass. 2020.

This only illustrates my point further. You can never just trust something a liberal reports (conservatives too, but everyone knows they're full of crap.) Liberals love lying with statistics, while conservatives just say "Fakenews, I don't believe in science."

If liberals didn't lie at every opportunity I'd be able to read their articles and outrages. But I can't. Because I know I have to fact check literally everything they say.

Like when they said those Duke Lacross boys raped that girl... then it turns out they weren't even there at the time she said... doesn't matter! Time to ruin innocent boys lives!

Just like "mattress girl". Once again, a completely fake woman's story, ruining the chances of real rape survivors from being taken seriously. Thanks liberals! Nothing like making it harder for survivors to get help.

[edit] Wait. AND LITERALLY ANYONE CAN SIGN THAT GOOGLE DOC ONLINE?! WTF?! What's next? Internet polls count as "scientific research"?

https://web.stanford.edu/group/maan/cgi-bin/?page_id=297

"Only 2% of of all rape and related sex charges are determined to be false."

On the flip side...

"On a related note, only about 40% of rapes are ever reported to the police..."

"Furthermore, only one in two claims lead to prosecution"

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm makes you think

Are you confusing the Donald Trump administration for liberals? I mean, Republicans and Democrats are both neoliberals so it could be an easy mistake to make.

If you specify a src target, it won't stall when trying to find a link to the quoted text. It's part of Matthew's quoting mechanism, and it parses the entire thread every time you quote someone.

Ie.
<quote name="raynebc" src="https://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/615770/1039587#target">

You mean like when a drunken lout commits a sexual assault? These were very serious allegations, and you can't prove it didn't happen.

Three of his drinking buddy friends testified to this. Are they lying too?

Uhm, excuse you? Who is qualified? Brett Kavanaugh? A good ole boy? A drunken lout? A liar under oath being elected to the highest court in the land? Such pompous BS.

And if you decriminalize distribution, and place it on the open market, their profits disappear overnight. No more money to buy coke and guns, and they lose all their power. If I could grow it myself I'd have no need for any of this shit. Just WHO are YOU that I should live by YOUR RULES? BS.

I suffer from schizophrenia, anxiety, and depression. Smoking doobie helps with all of that. My schizophrenia medication gives me severe restlessness and the inability to focus on tasks. It's called akathesia, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. My anxiety hasn't been as bad lately, but over the last few years, it's caused me a lot of problems, and I've always had to deal with depression. WHO ARE YOU to deny me MY MEDICINE?

Why don't we just give everybody a lobotomy then? Nobody will enjoy anything.

{"name":"babydolllobotomystraightened_suckerpunch_jpeg80_by_nemonameless-d5jle4u.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/7\/071b5ec0669ab097f94a6796b46b3356.jpg","w":2968,"h":2143,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/7\/071b5ec0669ab097f94a6796b46b3356"}

That's not how the legal system works in the USA, for reasons bamccaig listed. By extension, any system that presumes guilt is an immoral one.

As for a few college buddies making claims like "he was so drunk he MUST have blacked out", that is speculation. I'd like to see if there was any documentation supporting this or if it it's just more of the same old hearsay. The rest of your partisan bullsh*t on Kavanaugh isn't worth me entertaining any more of.

I'm an American citizen. I don't really care if you have mental problems, you're not automatically exempted from the laws the rest of us have to follow just because breaking those laws is helpful for you. If you want to move to a state that allows for medical marijuana, go right ahead, I don't care.

An individual doing cocaine harms him/herself and can certainly harm others while under its influence or when jonesing to get another fix. Your argument that legalizing some/all illegal drugs just to destroy the black market for it is more interesting, but drugs that cause severe and permanent harm to the brain still need to be strongly curtailed, such as by rehab programs that have been mentioned in the thread.

To say that only 2% of reports are false, which is the low end of the estimate for confirmed false accusations, is disingenuous. This discredits the original "group" for leaving that out.

It's impossible to know how many reports are actually false. In the same way that evidence is difficult to find that proves a sexual crime occurred, it would be moreso difficult to prove that a sexual crime did not occur. As above, in general, there would never be evidence of this unless the alleged victim admits to the fraud or the alleged offender was demonstrably nowhere near the victim when the alleged crime occurred (e.g., if video surveillance proved he was accounted for all night). If a man's whereabouts is questionable, or he is certainly involved with the woman at the time, it would be impossible to prove he didn't commit a sexual crime.

In a political world where men are disposable and women are sacred you can guarantee reports of "false accusations" would only be recorded where the alleged victim admits to the fraud, and is completely stable in doing so (not emotional or reckless). This means that we most likely have no idea what the actual rate of false allegations is, and to assert that it is not a concern is completely disingenuous. The implication being that so few false allegations are made that we should just believe women and assume guilt. That's completely wrong and extremely sexist.

Bambam why can you spout paragraphs without any supporting evidence (just your feels) but I post anything and it comes under extreme scrutiny?

Don't you see the hypocrisy?

Scrutinize all you want. I'm right here. Your "supporting evidence" isn't really evidence. It's just politics.

Even research papers are open to scrutiny. That's kind of the point. Just because it's been written doesn't mean that it's correct. The whole point is for people to scrutinize it. Any papers about this subject will be subjective because there is no conclusive data. You'll find it hard to locate papers that challenge it because research requires funding and research that might call into question the Feminist ideology will be very unpopular. The funny thing about most research papers is that they are behind pay walls (at least for us laymen). A practice I find very distasteful, if not downright disingenuous.

I assume if you saw any flaws in my logic you would have attacked that. Instead, you're attacking my right to question your "evidence".

There's nothing wrong with occasionally getting drunk enough to vomit or black out. If it was a daily occurrence today then you might question this person's stability, but having done it in college sounds like par for the course and having done it a few times ever is just everybody's experience that isn't a buzz kill. This is akin to the whole "I did not inhale" bullshit. Of course you inhaled. It's just politics. And the results don't matter. This is not questioning whether the person is qualified to be a supreme court judge. It's attacking his character so the powerful position can go to somebody that is otherwise strategic for another player. It doesn't fucking matter. You're being distracted by this bullshit so that you aren't paying attention to the real trick.

Append:

The abortion angle, if true, will be far more persuasive. Like I said, women are the sacred resource of all time. Everybody will get upset over a woman's rights being tromped on. A guy that drinks too much? You're referring to most of the population now. Are we all going to crucify him for that? Odds are it was his own camp that paid to have this brought up to distract you from the politics that might actually defeat him.

> In a political world where men are disposable and women are sacred you can guarantee reports of "false accusations" would only be recorded where the alleged victim admits to the fraud

Begging the question.

> and is completely stable in doing so (not emotional or reckless).

The source I linked to indicates otherwise--teenagers (i.e., selfish idiots) and unstable women are the primary reporters of false rape, not women with strong and successful careers.

> This means that we most likely have no idea what the actual rate of false allegations is, and to assert that it is not a concern is completely disingenuous.

Argument from ignorance.

> The implication being that so few false allegations are made that we should just believe women and assume guilt. That's completely wrong and extremely sexist.

Strawman. I never argued or claimed that.

> Even research papers are open to scrutiny.

You don't have the credentials to review (or should I say scrutinize) articles published in peer reviewed journals, sorry.

> I assume if you saw any flaws in my logic you would have attacked that.

I didn't care to dissect your post when replying to this thread takes so long.

> Instead, you're attacking my right to question your "evidence".

By putting 'evidence' in quotes you are clearly disregarding a reputable source for no reason, and calling into question the reliability of government data, peer reviewed data, and a respected international news company.

Civilizations have rules. If you don't want to be subject to somebody's rules, go buy an island in international waters and make your own rules.

The article doesn't show they ever documented this when it happened. It's still just hearsay. Which is what I said it was the last time you linked it.

It looks like a story about a pseudonym scribbled in a year book about somebody getting drunk and falling asleep is the closest you have to evidence? I don't find that convincing, but the Democrats are desperate to justify their hatred for Kavanaugh.

Unproven claims and innuendo from decades ago don't negate a life long professional career.

Jamaica is sounding pretty nice right around now. But seriously, if it were just me what does it matter, but there are millions of Americans who have smoked pot before and who do so regularly. Who are you to silence their voice? If we had things your way, everyone would be in jail. Instead, the laws need to be changed because they are immoral.

That was just the tip of the iceberg. If you had read the linked article on the intercept, there is an entire memoir of mark judges book called wasted. He was a self admitted serial groper and first class drunk, not to mention being best friends with 'Bart O'Kavanaugh', who is obviously Brett Kavanaugh.

I still don't see what's wrong with you people when you blindly support drunks, liars, and bigots.

bamccaig, no wonder you don't like academia, you have no fucking clue how it works. And you went to school? Did you snooze through English?

You don't know how peer review works, you don't know what conflict of interest is, you don't know how research is performed... wow.

This is like arguing with a flat earther: they think they know how the scientific process works, but they never took Science 101.