For the win

For the win | WHEN YOUR OPPONENT IS WINNING AND IT'S YOUR LAST DITCH EFFORT | image tagged in spongebob | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
share
12,505 views, 224 upvotes, Made by Stead 3 months ago spongebob
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
23 ups, 1 reply
DID SOMEONE SAY **PE | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
BILL CLINTON IS A LYING SACK OF CRAP DONALD TRUMP IS A LYING SACK OF CRAP | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
As long as Bill is still kicking, you can defend to the death the awful behavior of any Republican.
reply
10 ups, 2 replies
Clinton is a rapist. Trump paid for all his hoes.
reply
7 ups
Nick Cage | THANK YOU FOR PERFECTLY ILLUSTRATING MY POINT | image tagged in nick cage | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
[deleted]
6 ups, 1 reply
You have that backwards; Trump grabs 'em by the pussy and pays them not to talk. Clinton's hoes blow him for free.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
Trump "allegedly" grabs (without permission) ... no one has been able to prove otherwise.
Clinton's escapades have become cliche for their sheer number and the way the media covers for him.
reply
[deleted]
6 ups, 1 reply
"Allegedly"? He admitted it on tape; that's called a confession.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
His base must be extremely ignorant and unwilling to change beliefs, just like him.
reply
4 ups
They’d literally eat shit sandwiches for him if he asked them to.
reply
[deleted]
6 ups
F**k off, you useless twunt.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
"Allegedly"? He f**king said it himself you moron. Those are HIS OWN WORDS.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
"And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything."

A tual transcript. Trump said they "let" you do it when you're a star. That's not assault.
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
For any other president, cheating on his wife, having 15 women accuse you or sexual assault, and having sex with a porn star while married to a super model would be enough for you guys. What is it about Trump that makes you so ignorant and unwilling to step back?
reply
19 ups, 4 replies
reply
4 ups
reply
6 ups, 4 replies
reply
14 ups, 4 replies
There CAN'T be a trial. No report was ever filed. The FBI NEVER investigates a state level "crime." Ford still can’t recall basic details of what she says was the most traumatic event in her life. Not where the “assault” took place — she’s not sure whose house it was, or even what street it was on. Nor when — she’s not even sure of the year, let alone the day and month.

Ford’s not certain how old she was or what grade she was in when she says an older student violently molested her. (But she doesn’t plead inebriation: She described having just “one beer” at the party.) Ford concedes she told no one what happened to her at the time, not even her best friend or mother. That means she can rely on no contemporaneous witness to corroborate her story. Worse (for her), the four other people she identified as attending the party, including Kavanaugh, all deny knowledge of the gathering in question, including Leland Ingham Keyser, who she calls a “lifelong friend.”

Keyser’s lawyer told the Senate Judiciary Committee: “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with or without Dr. Ford.”

The other two potential witnesses — Mark Judge and Patrick “P.J.” Smyth — also deny any recollection of attending such a party. The committee took their sworn statements “under penalty of perjury.”

Her own immediate family doesn’t appear to be backing her up, either. Her mother, father and two siblings are all conspicuously absent from a letter of support released by a dozen relatives, mostly on her husband’s side of the family.

The letter attests to her honesty and integrity. Why didn’t her parents and brothers sign the letter?

Ford contends that notes her therapist took in 2012 corroborate her account. But they don’t mention Kavanaugh.

They also point up inconsistencies in her story. For instance, her shrink noted that Ford told her there were “four boys” in the bedroom, not two as she now says. The notes also indicate Ford said she was in her “late teens” when she was assaulted. But Ford now says she may have been only 15.

In another inconsistency, Ford told The Washington Post she was upset when Trump won in 2016, because Kavanaugh was mentioned as a Supreme Court pick. But Kavanaugh wasn’t added to Trump’s list of possibles until November 2017, a full year later.

SHE IS A LIAR AND THIS IS A LEFT WING HIT JOB.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
Someone who has some sense on this site
reply
1 up
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
So you're right if they DON'T have witnesses, and you're right if the DO.
Convenient.

No evidence. Six FBI investigations. Her story has changed so many times. Never mentioned him to her therapist.

You're just hoping to delay long enough to scuttle the process in the hopes that the Dems will win a couple extra Senate seats and then never confirm anyone ever again.

This was as predictable as the whole Roy Moore incident in Alabama ... never happened. Story full of holes.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
The FBI investigated her story a whopping ZERO times.

Lying is so unbecoming, even for your kind.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Hey genius, her story is a fairy tale. Made up for politics in 2018.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Hansel and Gretel away to your heart's content, you still don't know shit what you're talking about.
reply
0 ups
Her story grows less believable every day. The more people that examine her responses the better it is for us all, right? If she's lying, do you still support her contention?

In her July 30 letter to Sen. Feinstein, Ford said, "The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and 4 others."

In her Aug. 7th polygraph letter, she said, "There were 4 boys and a couple of girls."

Even if Ford counted herself in one account and not the other, there's no way to come to the same total number of people at the party. Feinstein letter would mean 5 people total. Polygraph letter would mean 6-7 people total (depending on if she counted herself or not).
reply
0 ups, 4 replies
You don't read the news much, huh? It was Romney that floated Kavanaugh in 2012 ... and she started preparing her story then. Too bad it's changed so much that she has zero credibility.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Two whole weeks for that incredible reply? Love to see what you would have done in two months.

Go back to your coma again.
0 ups
Yeah. I actually have a job that requires significant overseas travel. I get to see how other countries laugh at liberals and wonder why conservatives put up with them.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
You don't read comments much, huh?
Try reading what I said instead of pretending otherwise for the sake of a fake altie bot argument. There are plenty here taking her word for it, go argue with them.

There are still zero facts to support either claim. Kavanaugh's ranting meltdown, however, did not inspire many to sympathize with him, or have you not read the news of why he wasn't confirmed last week?

Romney was never President, he was in no position to float anybody. That's stupid. You remember any other names he mentioned for other positions?
0 ups
Ah, as I suspected (I know what I'm talking about), you DON'T read the news or else you'd already know about her preparation to oppose Romney if he was elected since Romney floated Kavanaugh. Sheesh ... you don't read comments OR the news.

From "The Hill":
If the FBI finds no corroboration of the charges, 60 percent believe that Kavanaugh should then be confirmed, according to a weekend Harvard CAPS/Harris poll of 1,330 registered voters. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), feeling rather directly the corrosive split within the nation, has the support of the country in insisting upon a brief and limited FBI investigation before the final vote. Sixty-six percent of Americans support that decision, and that includes 80 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of independents but only 45 percent of Republicans. GOP voters were ready for a vote now, and overwhelmingly back the confirmation without further delay.

BUT once the voters are told that the named witnesses deny any knowledge of the allegation, this shifts to 57 percent who favor confirmation — and that goes up to 60 percent, if the FBI agrees there is no corroboration. Remember, because there is no specific “where” or “when” in Ford’s allegation, Kavanaugh cannot establish an alibi — and that’s why corroboration of other facts is so critical.(hard to establish an alibi when the accuser is too stupid to remember ANYTHING except that she drank a beer).

This was a typical Democrat hit job. They do this all the time while they excuse themselves from REAL incidents that had evidence.
reply
0 ups
"Yeah. I actually have a job that requires significant overseas travel. I get to see how other countries laugh at liberals and wonder why conservatives put up with them."

Course you do, chipmunk.

You get to see how other countries laugh at liberals and wonder why conservatives put up with them? Really? I spent three years arguing with foreign SJWs. Their conservos make our libos look like something out of the 19th Century. I'm presently in contact with more folks from overseas (most are Brits) than Americans (site had more of them). Nice try, tho.

- Oh, wait, you're talking about the Middle East, yes?

Enjoy your imaginary job.

Shoo.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
"Ah, as I suspected (I know what I'm talking about), you DON'T read the news or else you'd already know about her preparation to oppose Romney if he was elected since Romney floated Kavanaugh. Sheesh ... you don't read comments OR the news.

From "The Hill":
If the FBI finds no corroboration of the charges, 60 percent believe that Kavanaugh should then be confirmed, according to a weekend Harvard CAPS/Harris poll of 1,330 registered voters. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), feeling rather directly the corrosive split within the nation, has the support of the country in insisting upon a brief and limited FBI investigation before the final vote. Sixty-six percent of Americans support that decision, and that includes 80 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of independents but only 45 percent of Republicans. GOP voters were ready for a vote now, and overwhelmingly back the confirmation without further delay.

BUT once the voters are told that the named witnesses deny any knowledge of the allegation, this shifts to 57 percent who favor confirmation — and that goes up to 60 percent, if the FBI agrees there is no corroboration. Remember, because there is no specific “where” or “when” in Ford’s allegation, Kavanaugh cannot establish an alibi — and that’s why corroboration of other facts is so critical.(hard to establish an alibi when the accuser is too stupid to remember ANYTHING except that she drank a beer).

This was a typical Democrat hit job. They do this all the time while they excuse themselves from REAL incidents that had evidence."

Of course I didn't read that. Did you read yesterday's NYTimes 40 pager on Trump? Did you read the Science Section too?
USA Today?
The Lubbington Township Gazzette?

I didn't even read your copypaste deflection now.
No need to "suspect" what I already told you.

You didn't fill me in on the rest of Romney's appointees, so enough of your party hack gaslighting. It's still stupid.

This aimless tripe bores me. I got other things to waste my time on.

Go back to your coma.

The Mitch McConnel Rules rules, mkay?
0 ups
Gotta love the Harry Reid rule, and the Joe Biden rule.
reply
2 ups
But, at the president's request, the FBI can reopen the background investigation of BK and look into this matter.
reply
0 ups
No shit we know this already show it to liberals instead
reply
10 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Well, at least Democrats and women do not want an alleged sex offender on the SCOTUS. Some republicans too.
reply
4 ups, 3 replies
They don't want a conservative on the bench. They've shown for decades now that they don't care what their own people do. No one wants a sexual predator on the bench. And there is nothing coming out that proves there is or is gonna be. It's just the Democratic party fulfilling it's promise to try everything possible to block this nomination.
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
For many reasons.
reply
2 ups
"They don't want a conservative on the bench."

Most people do not want him on the bench, re: FOX News and their poll.

"They've shown for decades now that they don't care what their own people do."

Wrong party, see meme, ask Donald Trump's fingers.

"No one wants a sexual predator on the bench."

Except Republicans like you and the rest here, as evidenced by their defense of him.

"And there is nothing coming out that proves there is or is gonna be. It's just the Democratic party fulfilling it's promise to try everything possible to block this nomination."

From John Boehner's "Our sole purpose is to make Obama a one term President" to six years of a do-nothing obstructionist Congress to the Mitch McConell Rule, did you really think the precendents laid by the illustrious GOP wouldn't be honored? The Democrats have kissed Republican ass for decades, and they are now showing it proper respect.
Deal with it.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
I didn't want an alleged sex offender for President, but Democrats did, and they supported Slick Willy throughout all of his sex scandals.
reply
1 up
During his incumbency for his second term? I am reading of allegations of an extra-marital affair by Gennifer Flowers with Arkansas Governor Clinton. Other allegations appear to come after his presidency started. The term "sex offender" does not seem to fit while infidelity seems to be accurate. If you remember something that will help me find indication of allegation against Candidate Bill Clinton, I'll look.
reply
0 ups
You seem to have no problem with it.
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
actually at this point I would love for there to be an investigation & trial, so if she's lying she can go to prison for falsely accusing someone. people need to learn there are consequences for this sort of thing. Goes for him too, if he's actually guilty. I doubt it, though.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
She wouldn't go to prison but we should definitely see the mother of all defamation lawsuits. It's odd that Bret hasn't filed one yet.
reply
0 ups
depends on whether or not they could nail her with perjury, among other things. The problem with defamation lawsuits is honestly here in the states they're pretty ineffective. In say, many countries in Europe, slander is a pretty serious offense and they aggressively prosecute slanderers. That isn't even close to the case here in the States.
reply
0 ups
The investigation will be "inconclusive" -- the FBI has already said this is a political issue, not a criminal one.
reply
3 ups
Nobody has pressed charges against Kavanaugh. It’s just an attempt by Democrats to delay the vote ‘till after the mid term elections
reply
5 ups
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
These retards will believe anything.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/michael-avenatti-joins-attack-claims-to-represent-woman-with-credible-information-on-kavanaugh-and-mark-judge/

Avenatti receives anonymous tip:
"Avenatti replied: Mr. Davis, Thank you for your email. We are aware of significant evidence of multiple house parties in the Washington, D.C. area during the early 1980s during which Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a “train” of men to subsequently gang **pe them. There are multiple witnesses that will corroborate these facts and each of them must be called to testify publicly."

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/4chan-prankster-claims-punked-michael-avenatti-with-hoax-kavanaugh-train-gang-rape-accusation/

Avenatti got trolled:
"A poster at 4chan made an unconfirmed claim Tuesday morning that he and his girlfriend punked porn star attorney and Trump antagonist Michael Avenatti. The two said they were behind Avenatti going public with an outrageously false story accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his prep school classmate Mark Judge of plying women at school era parties with drugs and alcohol so they could be gang **ped by a “train” of men."
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
Debunked.
reply
3 ups
The accusation? Yes it has.
reply
9 ups
reply
8 ups
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
I know, right?
reply
10 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
She's more of a s**t and is asking for attention to f**k her
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Another testimony to adulterous treasonous Trump's stupidity, since he paid her.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Look mate why do you use g man a lot
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Because I'm an attention seeking sIut too.
reply
0 ups
reply
9 ups, 3 replies
reply
6 ups
Icing on the cake:
His stance that the president should be exempt from civil suits while in office, as well as immune from criminal investigation and prosecution.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups
reply
1 up, 1 reply
what's a superpac is it like aipac?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
PAC is a “political action committee”. Essentially, a partisan group that disseminates propaganda.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
so no difference between superpac and aipac then? ;)
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
"AIPAC is not a political action committee (PAC) and we do not rate or endorse candidates for elected or appointed office."
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
everybody outside of America knows AIPAC runs America
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Not nearly as much as corporate lobbyists. AIPAC is $1.7M vs US Chamber of Commerce spending $1,455M, for instance. But you asked if they're a Super PAC and they're not.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Fix your numbers it's $1.455 billion or you accidentally pressed comma
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
I already know that
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
reply
1 up, 1 reply
evidence...
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Evidence it didn’t happen...
reply
5 ups, 3 replies
"Evidence it didn't happen..."
It doesn't work that way in America.
Alas, people who think like you want to make America into a communist country where an allegation is grounds to have an entire family thrown in a gulag or executed.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
From The Harvard Crimson

Hundreds of Harvard Law Students Walk Out of Class to Support Kavanaugh Accusers

The article also says that the protesters want a fair investigation and judicial hearing.

“This walkout symbolizes the lack of an investigation into these allegations, it symbolizes the Harvard administration’s deafening silence on this matter, and it expresses our deep concern as human beings and as Americans for the harms that Judge Kavanaugh would do to us,” she said.

Who said that law students were protesting "innocent until proven guilty?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
The fact that they said it was in support of the accusers and "expresses our deep concern...for the harms that Judge Kavanaugh would do to us," says they don't believe he is innocent until proven guilty.

Did one of them actually have to say the words for you to pick up on that?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Doesn't matter what you believe. You treat him like he is innocent until proven guilty. And confirming him to the Supreme Court would send a message to all the little boys that the alleged behavior is OK. So, exonerate him, with investigation and such, nominate someone else, or damage the country (nominate him anyway).

Did you think "she's a lyin' hoe" is innocent until proven guilty? (by WhatTheFudge101)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
When you publically say, "I support the accuser," you are not treating the accused as innocent. What you are doing is finding him guilty in the court of public opinion.

The true neutral response would be, "That sounds terrible, it needs to be handled in a court of law."

I personally think that Kavanaugh is a garbage nominee to SCOTUS. Not because of the allegations that have come up against him, rather because he was a scribe to, was consenting to, and possibly contributed to the PATRIOT Act.

He is no friend of liberty or or our rights as citizens. I hope he is not appointed.

Your comment about, "send a message to all the little boys that the alleged behavior is OK" is very weak. It is called appeal to emotion and appeal to consequences.

Whoever made that last comment is just showing their ignorance more than those who support Kavanaugh because they support Trump, no questions asked.
reply
2 ups
Supporting the accuser is a recognition of how difficult it is to come forward and face the invasion of privacy, face their own (inappropriate) feelings of guilt and shame, face all the publicity and such.

I sure wish trump had taken a neutral response.

My opinion is that confirming him is condoning his (alleged) behaviors. I have seen the opposite claim, if BK is not confirmed, all the hopes and dreams of little boys everywhere will always be in jeopardy from any female acquaintance along the way with false claims.

Stay an informed voter.
reply
3 ups
Take off your Depends, it isn't happening.

On second thought, it is, courtesy of Putin's bot, Trump.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I didn’t even say that. But by all means assume I liberal and put words in my mouth like a typical trump supporter. I don’t think it’s right for an allegation without conviction to ruin anyone’s life. Case and point a college football player where I live spent years in jail waiting for a trial for **pe he was found innocent of. While the woman was not even charged anything. That’s a broken system that, much like government, needs reformation.

None of us know the whole story except the accuser and the accused. Just because the allegation came forth at such a time does not make it true or false. Assuming one or the other prematurely makes you appear stereotypical. Case and point your statement about me wanting a communist America when that’s the biggest crock of Bullshit I’ve ever heard.

I don’t have an issue with Kavanaugh. Nor do I know the woman making this claim. But either could be inherently honest or lie right out their ass.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I apologize if I mistook your comment "evidence it didn't happen" as being the only evidence that matters to you. If that is not true of you, you should have disregarded my comment.

People who do believe that only "evidence it didn't happen" matter and the accused is guilty until proven otherwise are close to being the type of authoritarians I described.

If you believe we shouldn't presume one side over the other, you don't know about our legal system which is founded upon due process and the presumption of innocence. Every citizen in America who is accused of a crime is by law presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law!

You either don't know that or don't care, so I'm not surprised you got angry.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Innocent until proven guilty is nothing but a set of words on paper. Just because a potential rapist is innocent until proven guilty does not mean the accuser is wrong until proven right. Biased emotional individuals will assume guilt or innocence not by due process but perception. If you don’t believe me look at how many women have lied about being **ped and got men convicted or the men that actually have **ped women and been found innocent based on the victim not having even more evidence than she could acquire which has led to suicide.

Our legal system is a broken pile of crap. And as I said it needs reformation.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Innocent until proven guilty is nothing but words on paper until you actually have to stand in front of a judge or jury.
Have you ever had to?
You vehemently (and rightly) proclaim that our judicial system is "a broken pile of crap and needs reformation" then you bad mouth and put down one of the few principles that makes the legal system bearable for people like me and my friends who have ended up in it: presumption of innocence.

Why am I even talking to you?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
A judge and jury that are both evenly capable of acting based on emotion and bias. Refer to my previous post. Women have gotten innocent men locked up and actual rapists have gotten away with it by appealing to little more than emotion from a jury and judge.

The legal system may be bearable to you, doesn’t mean that it is for everyone.

You interpret presumption of innocence means the person claiming guilt is nothing more than a liar.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
No evidence, expired statute of limitations, & convenient timing for obstructionist DemocRATS = BULLSHIT!
reply
1 up
Ok keep telling yourself that. Doesn’t mean it’s true until it’s proven to be so.
reply
2 ups
I knew it all along.
reply
2 ups
reply
1 up
imgflip.com/i/2imz0n

I made up a term just for the slimy practice.
reply
2 ups
reply
2 ups
i.imgflip.com/224sin.jpg (click to show)
reply
1 up
i.imgflip.com/2irzfl.gif (click to show)
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
Even funnier, Roe later said she regrets that whole thing, she was pressured into it by people with an agenda.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I know. Not so funny, really. She tried to get them to reverse it and they wouldn’t. She went on to become a pro-life advocate.
reply
1 up
Yeah, I meant to say "not funny "haha", but funny "ironic"."
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Too late now :)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Yup. A woman was pressured into doing something she didn't want to do, but it's okay because it benefited the left. If it had benefited anyone else, it would have been called [email protected]
reply
0 ups
So she didn't bring the case willingly? Then how was it allowed to go forward? Why didn't she tell people it was being done against her will?
reply
0 ups
reply
0 ups
But makes me wonder how many people leave the nsfw tag on search for some sexual appeal
reply
0 ups
reply
2 ups
She’s a lying hoe.
reply
4 ups, 3 replies
"Your honor, as you can see here there was no murder marked on my calendar, I rest my case"

Get the f**k out. Even here in F**KING GERMANY I facepalm to this blatant bullshit. A calendar doesn't prove anything, it just states what you want to do not what you did or are doing.

For example; My Calendar has 'Vist BFF's Birthday Party' marked on it. However instead I am at Hans im Glück eating a Burger.

HIS DEFENSE IS THE WEAK ONE HERE. Also, if you highly doubt that the allegations are true why don't you let the FBI investigate the claims?
reply
8 ups, 3 replies
His defense isn't weak, her accusation is so full of holes it resembles swiss cheese.

Ford still can’t recall basic details of what she says was the most traumatic event in her life. Not where the “assault” took place — she’s not sure whose house it was, or even what street it was on. Nor when — she’s not even sure of the year, let alone the day and month.

Ford’s not certain how old she was or what grade she was in when she says an older student violently molested her. (But she doesn’t plead inebriation: She described having just “one beer” at the party.) Ford concedes she told no one what happened to her at the time, not even her best friend or mother. That means she can rely on no contemporaneous witness to corroborate her story. Worse (for her), the four other people she identified as attending the party, including Kavanaugh, all deny knowledge of the gathering in question, including Leland Ingham Keyser, who she calls a “lifelong friend.”

Keyser’s lawyer told the Senate Judiciary Committee: “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with or without Dr. Ford.”

The other two potential witnesses — Mark Judge and Patrick “P.J.” Smyth — also deny any recollection of attending such a party. The committee took their sworn statements “under penalty of perjury.”

Her own immediate family doesn’t appear to be backing her up, either. Her mother, father and two siblings are all conspicuously absent from a letter of support released by a dozen relatives, mostly on her husband’s side of the family.

The letter attests to her honesty and integrity. Why didn’t her parents and brothers sign the letter?

Ford contends that notes her therapist took in 2012 corroborate her account. But they don’t mention Kavanaugh.

They also point up inconsistencies in her story. For instance, her shrink noted that Ford told her there were “four boys” in the bedroom, not two as she now says. The notes also indicate Ford said she was in her “late teens” when she was assaulted. But Ford now says she may have been only 15.

In another inconsistency, Ford told The Washington Post she was upset when Trump won in 2016, because Kavanaugh was mentioned as a Supreme Court pick. But Kavanaugh wasn’t added to Trump’s list of possibles until November 2017, a full year later.

SHE IS A LIAR AND THIS IS A LEFT WING HIT JOB.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Clearly with such a strong opinion of her claim, you're a sexual assault investigator or some other specialty whom has been working in the field for 20 years. You know what kinds of things victims remember, and how much they might fail to recall. Or have you blessed us with bull that you just made up with your "common sense"?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Scares you when someone is right, does it?
Scares you so much you cannot refute any of the facts presented, you just resort to "you're not an expert"? BWAHAHAHA!

Personally, I think YOU'RE the one who groped her... prove me wrong.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I've never been to DC or the surrounding areas. Proof.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
And Kavanaugh never attended that party. Proof.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
He was in the area and could have. It is not in his interest to try to remember or admit it. His admitted level of drinking has been changing. People can't place him out of the party because they all say they do not remember the party. I guess we'll have the investigation after all. Assaulted men and women everywhere (world) want to know.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
100,000 people "could have" -- her story is swiss cheese. Full of holes.

Where was the party? I don't know.
How did you get there? I don't know.
How did you get home? I don't know.
What month did it occur? I don't know.
Who all was there? I don't know.
Why does your best friend not support your allegations? I don't know.
Why does your brother, mom, and dad not support your allegations? I don't know.
Where was the house? I don't know.
Who owned the house? I don't know.
Why did you tell your therapist there were 4 boys involved, but now you say only 2? I don't know.
Why didn't you tell anyone? I don't know.
Why does every, literally EVERY "witness" deny knowing anything about this or about the party in general? I don't know.
Who can corroborate anything you've alleged? I don't know.

Yet, you and your ilk see no problems... That's baffling to those of us with an IQ over 100.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
You are clearly, and obviously misrepresenting the facts. I must assume you are biased, but representing you belief. Oh, I see problems. I'm afraid the FBI investigation does not have enough time to collect as much information as they should. I have concern that Republicans let this roil in the public sphere for 10 days while they delayed. I am afraid that the resulting information will not help draw a clear conclusion. I want a clear conclusion, he did it, or he didn't do it.
reply
0 ups, 3 replies
Here is your conclusion. He didn’t do it. She has a history of coaching people on how to pass a lie detector test. Democrats did this same hit job on Roy Moore in Alabama last year. It’s their go to move when losing.
0 ups
None of that is relevant to finding the truth.
0 ups
You say "she is lying" and "she is capable of fooling all of us because of knowledge of lie detector tests" and "Democrats produced illegal false stories and found people to tell those stories" and "that Democrats keep lying about **pe to hurt republicans."
0 ups
This was never about finding the truth dumbass. It was about stopping a Trump SCOTUS appointee.
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
Lad, first of all; Do not associate Swiss Cheese with Sexual harassment in any way shape or form. I actually like that type of cheese and secondly; I never said that the Accusation's were rock solid. I said Kavanaugh's defence was weak. I'd be more comfortable with kavanaugh if he were to provide some decent arguments and not "Its not on my Calender"

Thats not even the thing that ticks me off the most in this whole debacle.

I'm pissed that people are DEFENDING SEXUAL HARASSMENT. YOU DON'T DEFEND SEXUAL HARASSMENT. IF YOUR ACCUSED OF IT YOU TRY PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE AND NOT DEFEND SEXUAL HARASSMENT.

What I mean to say is that one of the Arguments floating around is that 'Even if the allegations were true, kavanaugh was still a teen at the time' or 'It was just a touch' or 'He was drunk' or 'Boys will be boys'. No. Look, the Mistakes of your teenage shouldn't follow you for life, however to every rule there are exceptions and Sexual Harassment is an exception. If I were an American citizen, I would very much NOT want a Sexual Harasser in the Supreme Court.

I hope I am clarifying my position. If I'm not I accuse my tiredness! In Gemrnay its currently rather late so Ja.
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
One party consistently seems to produce sexual charges on the other party's candidates. It's so damn predictable it should be laughable. The Democrats have cried WOLF for so many years that the only people who believe them are the most gullible.

How would you defend yourself if someone said you were at a party 30 years ago and groped her ... and you weren't at the party? You'd say the same thing he said. "I wasn't there. Never happened." The whole calendar thing came up later. This is nothing but a hit job. If it was so airtight ... why did Diane Feinstein sit on the letter for months and why will she STILL TO THIS DAY not allow anyone to see it? Plain and simple: perjury. Writing a letter to Congress with known lies in it is a Federal Crime. If Feinstein submits that letter and it's proven to be a lie, Ford is toast. No one single person, even her own mother, father, or brother backs up her story. It's a fairy tale designed to forever taint any decision that Justice Kavanaugh votes on.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Defending or proving a negative is almost impossible and opens the door for any accusation at any time to any one, their only recourse, to go into debt and fight the accusations. The presumption of innocence "innocent until proven guilty" is a foundational belief in the US, a philosophy that sets us apart from much of the world. It prevents, usually, people from being charged with crimes when there's no evidence to support them.
reply
5 ups
Agreed. You'd say "I didn't do it. I wasn't there." Then, when the media failed to mention the holes in your accuser's story, you'd search for any tiny shred of evidence ... perhaps a calendar in your old high school scrapbook that had the dates you were out of town attending a baseball camp or something ...

The whole story stinks and is nothing but a Democratic hit job. The next Republican nominee will go through the exact same damn thing ... guaranteed.
reply
1 up
BRAVO - Well said!
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Lad, I'm not defending anyone here. I agree if someone were to accuse me of sexually Harassing them some point 30 years ago and I don't remember such a thing happening, I'd defend myself too, but I wouldn't use the Argument "Even if it were true it wouldn't matter" or any variation of it. I don't know nor do I care why she hasn't filed a Harassment charge earlier, That's not my problem. My problem is with people saying "Even if the allegations were true, it wouldn't matter"

I don't care about the allegations, its the f**king way people have been defending kavanaugh. By Defending Sexual Harassment.

Thats what I'm pissed off about. I'm not ProRepublican Nor ProDemocract. (Even though I technically am Democract since I like to think my self a proud member of the SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland(Social Democratic Party Germany)))
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
I haven't heard Kavanaugh use that defense and the only reason anyone would use it would be to demonstrate the utter ridiculousness of her accusations. Thirty years ago? Seriously? When he was a minor? At a party he claims he was never at? And no one backs you up? And you didn't even mention it until 2012 when your own marriage was on the rocks? And even then you didn't mention Brett Kavanaugh? And you're telling a different story today than the one you told your therapist? And none of your witnesses or even any of your friends remembers such a party? Seriously?

I had a friend who was falsely accused of groping a girl. He was an actor in a "Haunted House" that was very dark and his job was to jump out, in costume, and scare the participants. He jumped out on one group and bumped into some teenagers, one of whom was a girl with a group of boys. A few days later, one of the girls accused him of groping her for several minutes against her will ... supposedly in front of the group of boys she was with.

The thing is, no one stayed in that area for "several minutes" and none of the boys would back her up. His life was turned upside down for over 5 years as her mother continually sought to have him fired from his job (she almost succeeded), his wife left him, and his own daughter decided to believe the girl. Then ... the girl recanted everything and publicly apologized, as did her mother. But the damage had already been done.

She was afraid at the time that her mother would be mad at her for hanging out with so many boys and would find out that she was sleeping with three of them so she made up the story to distract her mother.

I personally know of several instances where these type of things have happened and it ruins lives and reputations.

Evidence must be presented. Period. Otherwise, an accusation should be ignored.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Kavanaugh himself hasn't used the Argument "It doesn't matter" personally but the Right wing media (i.e. Fox News and co) have. And thats my problem. Look, I couldn't give a lesser damn about the Accusation its just that as counter arguments things like "Its not on my Calender" or " Doesn't matter, even if its true"

And that defense was used in a serious manner and not to underline the ridiculousness of the situation. Look I don't belive that the mistakes of your teenage should follow you for life. That bieng said to say that Sexual harassment wouldn't matter anyway is quite frankly disturbing and hints at something ugly. Anyway, I am losing track of what we're arguing about so to summe it up for myself atleast

"Don't care about the accusations or if he actually did it or is innocent, However I do Care that people are using "Even if its true, Sexual harassment doesn't matter" as an argument.
reply
1 up
It does NOT matter. In the eyes of the law, IT NEVER HAPPENED! Furthermore, it is impossible to prosecute at this point due to the statute of limitations which protects people from being smeared in this manner. If her allegation were true, she would have reported the incident when it happened.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
1. That girl you described is a piece of trash, period, end of discussion. Ruining someone's life with a false accusation because she didn't want mommy to find out she was a skank? That guy should've taken her to civil court and sued her and her mother for every last penny.

2. Not every instance of sexual harassment or even sexual assault leaves behind any evidence to confirm that it happened. I'm not saying Kavanaugh is innocent or guilty, but this "no evidence" argument is sort of flimsy. If a guy gropes a woman and no one else sees it happen, how could she prove it did?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
On the flipside, how can he prove he didn't?
The problem with he said, she said, is most people keep it in the back of their minds and it tarnishes, if not outright ruins, reputations. That's why we are supposed to have due process ... that's laughable today. There IS NO due process anymore. Once accused, you're guilty IF you're accused by a woman claiming you tried anything sexual with her. Of course if you're an illegal alien and you murdered her, due process is screamed from the rooftops.
reply
0 ups, 3 replies
I agree with the first part about he said/she said tarnishing and ruining reputations, but I disagree that there is no due process anymore. The court of law and the court of public opinion are two totally different things.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
You did however say that due process still applies because the court of law and the court of public opinion aren't the same thing. Ruining a person is ruining them, regardless which court it happens in. Only one of those two systems requires evidence. So where is the outrage over this? Feeling a little apathetic about justice suddenly? You certainly don't seem even the least bit hesitant or remorseful about the way your party has resorted to character assassination as a means to circumvent not only the courts but their constitutional duty to our republic.
0 ups
"You certainly don't seem even the least bit hesitant or remorseful about the way your party has resorted to character assassination"

My party? I was unaware I was a Democrat.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Recently? Elon Musk was forced to step down as chairman of Tesla due to legal proceedings. Regardless, why is it okay to ruin someone in the court of public opinion when there's no evidence that would hold up in a court of law? that's circumventing the legal system in order to ruin someone without a trial
0 ups
I never said it was okay to ruin someone in the court of public opinion
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Yes, and because the left has no grounds for complaint in a court of law, they are ruining people in the court of public opinion. If a judge's ruling says you must be fired from your job and not work in that field again, is it actually different in effect than losing your job and never being able to find one in that field again due to slander?
0 ups
When has a judge ruled that someone must be fired from their job?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
The SPD were Marxists some years back, isn't that political ideology commonly associated with states governed by Communist parties, which as we all know are very democratic I think not!
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Nah, mate. We reformed back in 59' I think. The MLPD (Marxistische-Leninistische-Partei-Deutschland) is the one your talking about
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Social Democratic Party of Germany Ideology was Social democracy based on Marxist socialism for this reason was banned by Hitler only to re-emerge after the war and developed during the 1950's until 1964 when Willy Brandt became leader of the SDP.
It may say conservative on the wrapper but it's Marxist on the inside.
reply
1 up, 4 replies
Conservative on the wrapper but Marxist on the Inside...? What?

No. Just No. That first part about the Origins of the SPD; Yes. The Conclusion on its modern day ideals; No.

If your an Expert on the SPD, then I've got quite a stockpile of two cebts about the Republican Party.

Social Democracy doesn't equate to Communism
reply
0 ups
imgflip.com/gif/2liqmz
However much you love your nation your leader doesn't. Remember this incident. This woman wanted to remove all sovereignty from all of Europes Countries and you people went along with it. History repeating itself........
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
The President of the EU is not elected by the people, the way Ireland was treated over the Maastricht Treaty, the un-elected Council of Ministers has total power over the EU Parliament. Yes maybe your right it's not a Marxist regime , it's worse, at least Putin has election. The EU is an expanded version of GDR and where are your leaders roots?
0 ups
So now the Arguments "Its worse than Russia, which atleast hast elections" Ey?

Contrary to the Ex-F**king-Soviet-Union The EU's Parlament elections aren't a farce, if you can find any sort of resemblance to the DDR please feel free to inform me. The Ministers of the Government are also not elected by the people, does that make the US worse than Russia? (Atleast I assume you call those postions Minster of etc)

Besides that the EU Parliament actually has power, a thing it uses relatively commonly. Taking that into account three out of the four 'Leaders' (I hesitate to call them President of Europe) of the four main branches of the EU are democratically elected by either the Parliament, the Council or bot of them. The fourth Major group doesn't have individuals as a Prez for the institution but a leading vountry based on a rotation. I feel your argument the EU is worse than Putinstan is now invalid.

So because Merkel, who by the way won't be Chancellor by 2021~, Came was born in the DDR it makes her... what? A East German? A Communist? A Fascist? Somehow undemocratic? So am I to assume that anyone coming out of China, Russia, Colombia, most African Nations are not to be trusted, because they didn't grow up in a democracy?

So what? The EU screwed up once. Maybe twice. Hell they can screw up ten time and I won't care. The economic benefits, the poltical benefits, the practical benefits far out weigh the negative
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Then why is the SDP so keen on maintaining an un-elected order for Europe?
Why are the people of Germany turning away from 'Frau-Führer' and her East German mind set?
Why does the SPD support Article 13?
Why is France now returning to a puppet Régime de Vichy?
Remember CCCP ???? ????????? ???????????????? ????????? which reads as Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik, USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, also called the SSSR.
Are you in the woods and not seeing the trees? or is the gas pipeline obscuring your view?
0 ups
You do realise, the EU parliament is an elected body right? Contrary to America, the EU actually works with other people. Yes, they might introduce an internet censoring bill, however, I ask you, how would one go and enforce it?

If you go right ahead and point out the similarities between, a Democratically elected government and the USSR, that be lovely, cause it seems to me that you know jack shit about the EU.

As for 'Frau-Früherin', not only has she announced that she recognise the problems that have arisen that could be solved by fresh leadership, she was treated respectfully when doing so. A thing You Americans can't boast about.
reply
0 ups
Seems imgflip doesn't like Cyrillic script hence all the ???????
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Please show me the evidence that you have on him. Do you have Audio, Video or Dna proof. Your just one of those progressives that will protect bill Clinton and Weinstein no matter what, but would be willing to bend over back wards against a Republican..
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
For the love of god I CARE NIT FOR THE BLOODY DAMNED ACCUSATION. ITS THE ARGUMENT "SEXUAL HARASSMENT DOESN'T MATTER" THATS TICKING ME OFF
reply
0 ups
I don't think it does matter to you. It matters that this guy might have a differing opinion than you, therefore he is guilty not because did or didn't do something, but guilt of going against the status quo.
reply
1 up
"I never said that the Accusation's were rock solid. I said Kavanaugh's defence was weak."

Oh please, EVERY man's defense is weak against accusations of sexual abuse, thanks to the "listen and believe" narrative. It's even worse when the allegations are false, because as any lawyer will tell you, proving a negative is next to impossible in sexual assault cases.
reply
1 up
"her accusation is so full of holes it resembles swiss cheese."

Examples?
reply
0 ups
:o
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Article 13 is yet to be placed in effect, You cant do shit
reply
0 ups
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
unless you're an imgflip user stuck in an echo chamber and your only defense is the word "libtard"
reply
5 ups
reply
4 ups
o shit (((i'm))) exposed
reply
1 up, 2 replies
If you don't like women waiting 30 years to come forward, then you shouldn't have made a male dominated culture that promotes victim blaming, death threats on victim, distrust of victim, ridicule of victim, harassment of victim, and humiliation of victim while victims often feel shame, guilt, and other conflicting emotions. There is a reason people call someone a dick when someone is being a jerk.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Medication. You need it.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
If you don't want your assault allegations to come up 30 years later, stay of the TV and out of public service positions, or don't get all **pe-y when you're young. Simple.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Allegations. That’s all they are. No facts, no proof. Even if it did happen which it clearly did not, the statute has certainly ran out. It’s political gold digging is all it is.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
There is no statute of limitation. So, now, BK is open to investigation by local police, which could end up showing him lying to congress. Didn't someone in recent memory get in trouble for that?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Trump Derangement Syndrome running wild is all it is. I guess when it’s all finally reveale for the steaming pile that it is then you’ll be ok with her being arrested along with all of the crybaby Dems pushing that garbage? Fair is fair, right?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Except how she mentioned several times that an FBI investigation would be helpful in that it could find corroborating or exculpatory evidence. She presented as more interested in the truth than anything with BK. She also claimed that she sees this as her duty to give testimony because it is so important when considering someone for such a high office.

And, all the senators who did not ask questions of BK, questions that would attempt to suss out the truth, are in dereliction of their duty as public servants.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I find it hilarious that you avoided his question. So are you okay with her going down for perjury or whatever else charges they can come up with if this whole thing is shown to be a sham by the FBI investigation? Or do you think she should be able to make false accusations and get off scot-free with ruining a man's reputation "becuz muh evil menz oppress us free womyn"
reply
1 up
Yes. If she is purely motivated to fabricate a story to change politics, scam people out of money, or get revenge, she should face criminal charges.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
https://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0 You feminist are so out of touch with reality. You honestly think that Islam is peace and treats women equally. Just look at the middle east under Sharia law. That's what i don't understand about feminist, they complain about equality only to create a society in which they are unequal.
reply
0 ups
haha, funny joke.
middle east, Islam , feminism, sharia
feminism is remotely related, the other 3 are total distraction.
Flip Settings
NSFW

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
WHEN YOUR OPPONENT IS WINNING AND IT'S YOUR LAST DITCH EFFORT
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
Feedback