Albert wrote:Yes, so compare that with Kavanaugh accusation with one like Ford: Imagine you watched the same documentary only with one woman accusing Japanese soldiers of the practice while the rest denying it.
Ford's friends didn't deny it. They said that they had no idea which party she was referring to and anyway they had not seen anything like that happen between her and Kavanaugh. That is, they just failed to confirm. This is not at all the same as a denial.
. . Also, "the rest" didn't deny it. At least 2 women got into the media with accusations of that sort of thing against Kavanaugh. Two of them didn't even get to testify and were not included in the 2nd FBI investigation. How many other women were smart enough to avoid having their life ruined by coming forward when the Senate was clearly bound and determined to confirm Kavanaugh no matter what?
. . And the Dems have explained why they didn't bring it up earlier. You just don't believe that explanation. And, clearly Ford and the others needed lawyers to protect them from people like Hindsite. Your attitude is like a juror believing that the accused in a murder trial is more likely guilty just because he hired a lawyer.
. . Again, if anyone's life has been 'ruined' or damaged it was Ford's and the other women's, not Kavanaugh's. All women knew in advance that that was the expected outcome. And yet, 3 women came forward. As I said, how many didn't?
----------------------------------
Hindsite's use of the phrase "there is no evidence" is sort of like how this thread's title/subject is in complete divergence with what that 3rd woman has said she had done.
-----------------------
Hindsite's use of the phrase "there is no evidence" reminds me of John Gray's book
Men Are from Mars and women Are from Venus.
In the book Gray says that men and women have different ways of speaking English. My wife is an Asian from SE Asia and she does the same sort of thing. That is,they exaggerate for no good reason. For example, she has had a hard day and doesn't feel like cooking. In order to avoid admitting to that reason, she says to her husband when he gets home from work, "You never take me out to eat any more." ---- He thinks, 'what can she possibly mean, we went out to eat twice last weekend.' Gray says this then leads to an unnecessary argument. If either of them realized it is just women's way of speaking, that could be avoided. Another example, wife asks man "if you
can, stop in your way home and pickup a gal. of milk?" He walks in without it because it slipped his mind. She asks him, "Where is the milk?" He doesn't want to admit his mistake, so he responds, "You asked 'if I can' stop for milk, I said yes; but I didn't promise to stop for milk, I only said that it is possible that I can stop for milk." Gray says that the problem here is women have a tendency to be polite and say "can you" instead of "will you". Gray says that he has to explain the problem here this way. "When you husband asked you to marry him, if he had said 'I love you dearly and want to spend my life with you.
Can you marry me?' What would have been your thinking?" Then they get it.
Anyway, he says there is "no evidence" when obviously there is evidence. This seems like an example of Gray's 'women's speak'.