Wife-beating likely rapist in the Senate?

[_Kevin Graham]

wow, a big departure from your previous critical mass for credibility vis-à-vis the Dr. Ford allegation, where the allegation was proof enough for you....and party affiliation of course.

Not true at all. Can you ever say anything that's true or is lying religiously part of your new political pledge?

[_Chap]

wow, a big departure from your previous critical mass for credibility vis-à-vis the Dr. Ford allegation, where the allegation was proof enough for you....and party affiliation of course.

See bolded portion below. You are either a liar or you have reading problems

If someone is a wife-beating rapist, then they should not be elected to the US Senate, or to an equivalent position in any other country.

Just to get this clear, can you post links to the evidence that the person in question can plausibly be suspected of being:

(a) A perpetrator of domestic violence

(b) A rapist

I ask simply so that this thread can be self-contained. (And I am not, of course, asking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.)

[_Water Dog]

I ask simply so that this thread can be self-contained. (And I am not, of course, asking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.)

Something like this, perhaps?

Recchie also sought a restraining order against Brown to keep him from "doing bodily harm" to her. Recchie claimed to be "in fear for the safety and well-being of myself and our children due to [Brown’s] physical violence and abusive nature” and said Brown "intimidated, pushed, shoved and bullied" her on multiple occasions.

A judge granted a seven-count restraining order against Brown. Recchie soon accused Brown of violating the order and said he "pushed me up against the wall with his arms in order to pass and entered the house."

According to a Columbus Dispatch article from 1989, Recchie again accused her ex-husband of violent behavior. This time, she said, Brown pounded on her door so hard that he broke it and assaulted her new husband, Joseph Recchie. Both Recchies filed police reports at the time but did not end up pressing charges.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/13/sher ... oo-moment/

[_subgenius]

...asking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.)

check your own powers of discernment.....previously the only "proof" you required was the allegation in-and-of-itself...a principle, like the DNC with Dr Ford, you have clearly abandoned here. If a single source allegation without any corroboration and any evidence was good enough for you then, why is it not good enough now?

[_Chap]

... previously the only "proof" you required was the allegation in-and-of-itself...

Nope. i did not require criminal court standard proof with Kavanaugh - just enough plausibility to invoke the precautionary principle. I think Ford's (non-anonymous) testimony, and the testimony that accompanied it, probably passed that bar

That is all I require in the present case.

You just can't get your head round anything like that, can you?

[_subgenius]

Nope. i did not require criminal court standard proof with Kavanaugh - just enough plausibility to invoke the precautionary principle. I think Ford's (non-anonymous) testimony, and the testimony that accompanied it, probably passed that bar

That is all I require in the present case.

You just can't get your head round anything like that, can you?

No one ever said you were requiring criminal court proof. Im just making the blatantly obvious observation that given the equal circumstances in 2 separate allegations, you are applying unequal demands for proof and unequal thresholds for "believable".
You literally, so far, are drawing the line for credibility based solely in anonymous or not-anonymous...the former being the initial condition of Dr Ford's allegation.
So, thus far all you requireis a name for the OP allegation to be credible.

wrap that around your own head, sir.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

So Leftists are now setting the standard of credibility at:

Non-anonymity.

That's kind of screwed up isn't it? Before anonymity safeguarded against victimizing the woman twice over. Now?

#believeallwomen #anonymityisrespect #justbelieveher

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

I'm happy to apply the same standard that I applied to Kavanaugh: take it seriously and investigate it.

[_Xenophon]

I'm happy to apply the same standard that I applied to Kavanaugh: take it seriously and investigate it.

I cannot "this" your post enough. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that in basically every case.

[_Chap]

.. previously the only "proof" you required was the allegation in-and-of-itself...

Nope. i did not require criminal court standard proof with Kavanaugh - just enough plausibility to invoke the precautionary principle. I think Ford's (non-anonymous) testimony, and the testimony that accompanied it, probably passed that bar

That is all I require in the present case.

You just can't get your head round anything like that, can you?

Like I said, the combination of Ford's testimony and of the testimony from others about Kavanaugh's habits was enough to cast a plausible doubt on his fitness. He may well have been as pure as the driven snow. But the risk was great enough to justify choosing another candidate to fill the vacancy on the bench.

Im just making the blatantly obvious observation that given the equal circumstances in 2 separate allegations, you are applying unequal demands for proof and unequal thresholds for "believable".
You literally, so far, are drawing the line for credibility based solely in anonymous or not-anonymous...the former being the initial condition of Dr Ford's allegation.

If I knew more about these allegations than has so far appeared on this thread, I might well find them plausible enough to make it a good idea to act according to what I stated at the beginning of the thread:

If someone is a wife-beating rapist, then they should not be elected to the US Senate, or to an equivalent position in any other country.

Just to get this clear, can you post links to the evidence that the person in question can plausibly be suspected of being:

(a) A perpetrator of domestic violence

(b) A rapist

I ask simply so that this thread can be self-contained. (And I am not, of course, asking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.)

I'm still waiting for Water Dog to post those links.

by the way, I really don't give a damn whether the person we are discussing is a Republican, a Democrat, or a member of the American Nazi League.

And I agree with this:

I'm happy to apply the same standard that I applied to Kavanaugh: take it seriously and investigate it.