zapatos

Phi did not make a legal pronouncement. Attacking the person who claims to be the victim of a crime is considered 'victim blaming'. What Phi was suggesting (and I agree with) was that your continued attack of Ford was indecent. e.g. "Taking into account the timing, delay and obvious motive of her accusation, to me she's not a victim, she's a liar." "In the tiny chance that she IS telling the truth..." "This Dr. Ford, if her story is true, let a man that she knew was a would-be rapist carry on his evil way, presumably doing the same thing over and over, all because she didn't report it. Not very public spirited of her. His wicked ways could have been nipped in the bud 36 years ago, if she's telling the truth. The safety of other potential victims doesn't seem to be something she ever cared about." Considering how much you seem to abhor bias, you seem to be showing a bit of it yourself.

You are an expert on objects and stuff? As far as I know the universe didn't have a start.

Can you think of any birds that have only black, blue, and yellow feathers? If not, can we take that as empirical evidence that they don't exist?

Blue whale.

Outstanding. I'm sending that to everyone. Thanks for linking it.

I don't see that happening in the US. The President cannot dismiss the courts to put in his own, cannot dismiss Congress, and cannot dismantle the Constitution. Putin, Erdogan, and Xi all had powers the the US President does not.

It will take more than that. "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

There is not even a LEGAL formality where we have to completely believe someone.

So if the process we've been following has not interfered with Due Process, then why have we been talking about it for 21 pages? When Ten oz says he believes Ford would not be likely to falsely accuse someone, there does not have to be proof he is guilty of anything to not vote for him. No proof is necessary he committed assault. If the process we follow to confirm or deny does not involve Due Process, then it needs to be removed from our conversation, and it should not be used as a shield for Kavanaugh.

From your link... What law do you think was not being followed in this process?

In the US people are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. No one that I've seen is disputing that so you can feel safe not asking that question again. On the other hand, that is not a universal standard in all aspects of society, e.g. Advise and Consent of Supreme Court Nominees. Since courts are different than other aspects of society, it is important not to conflate the two.

With all due respect, I think it is you who is missing the point. The Kavanaugh hearings were not a trial. Due Process has absolutely nothing to do with any of this unless charges are filed. Presumption of innocence is not necessary. Even if the Judiciary Committee believed Kavanaugh they could have decided not to move him forward for a vote for any reason, such as that they thought he was too divisive. The "status quo" you mention is not that the Senate follow Due Process, but that they use their own judgement on how to vote. This was a job interview, not a trial. EDIT: Spelling and grammar.

No, the statistic you asked for was "people declared not guilty and who are actually innocent". How does one "display as absolute truth"? Is there a special font used? Where did you come up with this "50%" you keep referencing? You say it like it is absolute truth. Please list the assumptions that were made. Please show me where they did rounding and how much it was. Please show the math that results in a multiple of 35. The reason I ask is because I'm afraid someone will think you are lying about having some basis for making those statements and we wouldn't want that to happen.

Where would one find a statistic like that?

You are making things up or terribly misreading the chart. These are not specific individuals we are talking about, they are statistics. If a woman is raped, there is someone who is a rapist. Just because a specific person who was accused is found not guilty does not mean the woman wasn't raped. You seem to be searching for a way to discredit the fact that women are sexually assaulted and that the crime is underreported.

They are still considered rapists because they raped someone. Courts never find people 'innocent', they can only find them 'not guilty'. You can be 'not guilty' for any number of reason, such as an illegal search by the police or insufficient evidence. That doesn't mean you didn't commit the crime. There is no rule that Federal judges be a member of the bar, so yes, Kavanaugh can keep his job. To lose his Supreme Court seat he would have to be impeached and convicted by Congress.

Because it was advantageous to their survival. Same reason all other species evolved the way they did.

"Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations".

I'm pretty sure you explained how faith limits evolution but I didn't understand it. Are you claiming that faith literally limits Evolution (with a big 'E')?

I'd have to vote for the mosquito as the greatest predator of concern for humans. The are responsible for something like 750,000 deaths per year. From the perspective of krill, I imagine baleen whales are pretty scary.

Dr. Smith is at the University of Missouri, my alma mater, and the first to win a Nobel Prize in the University of Missouri system. My wife knows him from her Biology undergraduate days, and he was a professor of my son's.

Lab tech.

I suspect the FBI would approach their questioning of those two somewhat differently than the Democrat and Republican Senators did. This whole thing is a pathetic sham. No one ever takes the high road because the other side will take advantage of the gesture. I can't hardly stand to read about the state of politics in the US. The search for justice is only done as a means to further their goals, not for any desire to do the right thing.

I did. And less than one minute later I heard the Presidential Alert on NPR.

It will vary based on the individual. Some will find it relaxing, others will feel an increase in anxiety, plus lots of other outcomes.