Suspended "with pay". Some "punishment"!

The school she teaches at number was posted on IG.  I'm sure they got hundreds of calls.

She's now toast.

Minnesota teacher who tweeted call to 'kill Kavanaugh' resigns

"Uh, no, I won't be able come in for a job interview at that time as I have an interview with the FBI."

wtf is that at the top of the steps?

...
Dammit, I got that catchy tune stuck in my head.
It reminds me of stray cats screwing at 3am.

Why do you insult stray cats screwing at 3am?

...
Dammit, I got that catchy tune stuck in my head.
It reminds me of stray cats screwing at 3am.

Is that a topless chick in the upper left corner dress as a pirate, or a dude with bitch tits.

Is that a topless chick in the upper left corner dress as a pirate, or a dude with bitch tits.

I watched Thomas sitting there today in the front row of the Kavanaugh ceremonial swearing in, and had to wonder: Is Thomas thinking "Welcome to the club, in more ways than one".

P.S. Ginsberg wasn't looking too spry again today... after that event last week where she seemed barely conscious at times.

So far, people like you seem to have 1M reasons her story could make sense,

why she can't produce a single piece of evidence to corroborate anything she says,

Maybe if she's that bad at supporting her stories, she should have kept it to herself?

Its called objectivity. Looking at all possibilities, not just the desired one.

This is kind of circular reasoning. Often times in sex assault cases there are no pieces of evidence to corroborate a story, the only evidence you have is the statement.

If indeed she was a victim of an attempted sex assault then she has every right to tell her story, there is no should or should not at this point.

No.  If you'd actually quoted my post instead of trying to take my words out of context to make them conform to your responses .... maybe you would not have made the responses you did.

Objectivity includes using common sense (as I said). "ALL POSSIBILITIES?"  LOL! No, only plausible ones that fit the facts.  Since she's offered almost no specific facts, the plausible possibilities don't increase as you tend to believe. They decrease, because without facts or corroboration of any kind, the credibility diminishes.  If all it takes is a lack of contradictory evidence to increase possibilities something happened, then I guess Big Foot is an empirically and objectively proven fact.

The only person going in circles is you -- unfortunately we can't call it "reasoning".  We are not talking about "often times".  This is a specific case.  Evidence can be direct or circumstantial.  If she'd written in a diary or journal, told a friend or parent, confided in a teacher, or filed a police report, maybe there would be some kind of corroborating evidence.  After 35 years, all we have is a smear at the 11th hour of a Supreme Court Justice by a bunch of Democrats who hate Trump and are already butt-hurt over his first Supreme Court pick.  Every single person Ford mentioned as potential witnesses denied any such knowledge of any event fitting her description.  Ford lied under oath about many things, and her lawyers showed their political agenda when they unethically refused to tell her of Grassley's offer to travel to CA if needed to take her testimony.

What's more likely?  Smear job by the same juvenile Democrat Senators (someone in Feinstein's office had to be the leaker) trying to get a delay on confirmation until after midterms, or he almost committed 2 misdemeanors in high school that were never reported with statutes of limitations of 1 year apiece in the early 80's, and that was enough to make a woman try to ruin his life 35 years later?

The Democrats never cared about Ford's "distress".  They only wanted to use it to run the clock out waiting for the FBI to chase down non-existent leads to find non-existent evidence of a non-existent crime.

She didnt name judge until her 3rd revision.

4 people were in the room
2-3 people were in the room
Kav was in the room and someone walked in (not judge yet)

Final version
Kav and judge were in the room

Details of what happened are not enough. What if i said schatz ran his hand down my back and squeezed my left butt cheek. Thats details. Does this mean schatz is automatically guilty? Does it mean im automatically credible? I have no clue where he did it. How i got there. How i left. 4 people who i claim was there when he did it, cant remember. So am i still credible and shall schatz go to jail?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Yes, all reasonable, plausible possibilities.

"Reasonable" and "plausible" are not objective terms. You are being subjective in using those.

Ford offered a number of very specific facts in her statement.

Not one single one of which have been corroborated by anyone, including the people she "factually" named as being witnesses to the alleged assault and at the home where the alleged assault occurred. One of those alleged witnesses was her best friend at the time who has no recollection of any such event and claims to have never met or been in the presence of Kavanaugh.

Specific actions and specific people.

Not one single one of which have been corroborated by anyone, including the people she "factually" named as being witnesses to the alleged assault and at the home where the alleged assault occurred. One of those alleged witnesses was her best friend at the time who has no recollection of any such event and claims to have never met or been in the presence of Kavanaugh.

You are focusing on the things she cannot recall to try and bring doubt to the things she can recall. People who act like not remembering where something happened 36 years years ago means that it must not have happened don't have any idea what they are talking about. They don't want to admit that it is quite normal for people to not recall many details during such traumatic types of events.

Most people that I have read commenting on the lack of memory of many of the surrounding moments of Ford's assertions of fact are not claiming that those failures to remember are proof of a false accusation, but that the failure of memory demonstrates the possibility that the things she claims to remember may not be factual. That seems, to use your term, perfectly "reasonable". Why would someone conclude that her lack of memory of things such as how she got there and how she got home and why her best friend who was there never asked her about why Ford disappeared from the house without saying a word to her or asked her anything about how she got home, etc. is not evidence of possible mistaken memory or intentional lying?

Case in point, Ford named Judge as the other person in the room during the time of the attack. Judge publicly stated that he doesn't recall that event. Kavanaugh supporters presented this as Judge saying it never happened which is very different than what he actually said. Consider also the fact that Judge was described as basically an accomplice to the attack, yet Kavanaugh supporters are so quick to believe his lack of memory. Why? Because they are looking for excuses to believe Kavanaugh, that is not objectivity.

You're kidding right? No one can "prove a negative". No one can prove Santa Claus doesn't exist. Impossible. No one can prove that any of the events alleged by Ford didn't occur. Impossible. All the people can say who she claims were witnesses to the events are "Yes, I was there" or "No, I was not at such a gathering or witness to any such events, to the best of my recollection". All the people she named, including her best friend at the time said the latter. No one can prove it didn't happen. Only Ford can produce corroborating evidence that it DID happen. Thus far she has not produced a single piece of corroborative evidence.

Ford had a few holes in her testimony but there is no proof she lied under oath about "many things".

The "second front door" to her home, which she claimed was the cause of the marital issues that led to her being in therapy (whose notes she won't release to investigators) in 2012 had been installed at least by 2011 at the latest, and was installed based upon a bulding permit taken out in 2007. So five years after the permit is taken out they have to go to marital counseling because they're still having an issue with her need for a second front door due to being groped 30 years previously? There is evidence that the door was installed to allow for an illegal rental within the home. She had claimed that the hearing would have to be delayed because of her fear of flying, yet she traveled on planes frequently. Etc. Etc. Etc. Rachel Mitchell outlined some of the "problems" with Ford's testimony in her summary, which concluded her account was not credible enough to bring charges, or even to get a search warrant, i.e. "probably cause".

Ford had a better showing than Kavanaugh in the hearing.

That's what you consider an "objective" statement of fact? That's a joke. That is pure 100% subjectivity. Here's my subjective take on that: You're a hypocrite.

The hearing didn't really show who was telling the truth but it did show Kavanaugh not maintaining a cool normally expected from SCOTUS justices.

The only thing that could demonstrate the "truth" of the allegations by Ford would have been corroborating evidence of some kind, including corroborating testimony/statements from the people, including her best friend at the time, who she alledged were at the incident. Zero corroboration. None. Nothing. Zip. Nada. As above re the impossibility proving a negative, there can be no proof of any kind that it didn't happen... all that can happen, and did, is that the people she said were there all said they weren't. As for your subjective claim about "a cool normally expected from SCOTUS justices", I (subjectively) call bullshit. What is expected of justices is that they are "fair" in their role as judge/justice, giving the sides arguing a case a hearing on the merits and the law rather than going into a case already having made up their mind. If you think any human being, because of some job they hold, is or should be, above human emotion, you are totally deluded and living in a dream world. Perhaps you, in your fantasy world of you being "objective", never have emotional responses to anything, including being accused of being a mastermind of serial drugging and gang raping of young women... well, good for you. I'm the opposite, I guess that would be "subjective" to you, but if Kavanaugh had gotten up there and calmly said nothing but, "As I've already testified, I did not do those things. I have nothing to add", well, I'd have been very disappointed in him as a man, as a human. But that's just ol' subjective me.

Sigh...
I can't force you to be objective if you don't want to.

Sigh...
Yeah, and we can't force you to acknowledge that you aren't objective either.

What bothers me is that people on both sides of this look only to the possibilities that support their desired views. Kavanaugh supporters look for reasons not to believe Ford and do not consider anything else. Kavanaugh haters look for reasons not to believe Kavanaugh and do not consider anything else. People don't want to consider reasonable plausible scenarios that don't fit with their desired outcome. The liberals don't want to admit that Ford's memory can be compromised by alcohol and the passage of time. Republicans don't want to admit that maybe the witness lied to protect his own butt or that maybe Kavanaugh was too drunk to remember what happened.

It is probably true that some people believe what they believe independent of evidence, but maybe far fewer than you believe. I believe a very large percentage of people would be swayed by "credible" evidence, just as juries are. The fact is that there is absolutely not one shred of corroborating evidence for the allegations of Ford. There is a lot of evidence that she is mistaken and/or lying about a number of her assertions. That tilts the scale. But the bottom line is NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE.  Plus, the whole thing just smells (subjectively).