Scrubbed Her Social Media Accounts: What is Christine Braley Ford trying to hide?

Darth Omar said:
It’s ‘lack of sensitivity’ to even begin to question whether she has an agenda? Even when it’s apparent that there could easily be one?

Doesn’t that put men pretty much at the mercy of any woman who makes a similar accusation? Would it be ‘insensitive’ of me to say ‘screw that’?
Click to expand...

Where did I say the bolded?
 
anatta said:
why am I "angry" discussing politics? we're discussing her credibility ( some of us still think that's important)

LMAO you can't "lurk and creep" online - and the pages are PUBLIC not "personal"

You choose to make that into some kind of deviant (lurking) behavior -it's not..
Click to expand...

The facts of this case - such as they are - are going to be determined by deposition, testimony, and corroborating facts.

Your anger about not being able to see her social media are irrelevant to the situation and the facts at hand.

What I am asking is for a logical and plausible explanation for why Trump supporters want to snoop the personal social webpages of a woman they don't know and have never met.

It is a legitimate question.

I have never had the slightest interest in lurking through the social webpages of people I do not know and will never meet.


Though I gotta admit, I have never met JK Rowling but this reminds me to find out if she has Twitter. I am a Harry Potter geek!
 
Thing1 said:
So, all people and circumstances are exactly the same?

Interesting theory, and probably worthy of further discussion.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that either. But, he would have as much incentive to scrub his online profile as she does. The only reason to scrub your profile is to hide what you have there as it might not make you look good. If all she had was pictures of her at soccer games and baking cookies, you can damn well bet it wouldn't have been scrubbed.

She is hiding her left wing activism. Period. You make all the excuses in the world for her if you want, but it is clear to rational people this has been a setup from July 2018
 
Teflon Don said:
I didn't say that either. But, he would have as much incentive to scrub his online profile as she does. The only reason to scrub your profile is to hide what you have there as it might not make you look good. If all she had was pictures of her at soccer games and baking cookies, you can damn well bet it wouldn't have been scrubbed.

She is hiding her left wing activism. Period. You make all the excuses in the world for her if you want, but it is clear to rational people this has been a setup from July 2018
Click to expand...

The bolded is a false presumption.
 
Teflon Don said:
I didn't say that either. But, he would have as much incentive to scrub his online profile as she does. The only reason to scrub your profile is to hide what you have there as it might not make you look good. If all she had was pictures of her at soccer games and baking cookies, you can damn well bet it wouldn't have been scrubbed.

She is hiding her left wing activism. Period. You make all the excuses in the world for her if you want, but it is clear to rational people this has been a setup from July 2018
Click to expand...

Did you ever think that her online posts could contain photos and references to family, neighbors and friends, who she surely wouldn't want to be involved in this sordid affair.
 
Cypress said:
The facts of this case - such as they are - are going to be determined by deposition, testimony, and corroborating facts.

Your anger about not being able to see her social media are irrelevant to the situation and the facts at hand.

What I am asking is for a logical and plausible explanation for why Trump supporters want to snoop the personal social webpages of a woman they don't know and have never met.

It is a legitimate question.

I have never had the slightest interest in lurking through the social webpages of people I do not know and will never meet.


Though I gotta admit, I have never met JK Rowling but this reminds me to find out if she has Twitter. I am a Harry Potter geek!
Click to expand...
looks like there is no corroborating facts. Which leaves testimony. One way we judge testimony is to look at motive.
One way we look at motive is does she have a political bent that would show a motive more then just she's upset.
So HIDING her politics by scrubbing means she doesn't want her politics known. why?

It appears she is an activist at minimum. We take that into account. it doesn't mean we impeach her testimony
but it does mean that is a factor to be weighed.

Her testimony is likely to be what we already know - unsubstantiated allegations.
Judge K will be denial.
they both can't be correct. so we are going to make a judgement based on all the factors
- including Judge K's support from women who say they never saw this in him -no pattern.

The Senate Judiciary committee has to act like a jury. weighing factors.
The only reason to look at her social media is to understand more about her -not some creepy voyerism
 
Thing1 said:
The bolded is a false presumption.
Click to expand...

What’s ‘false’ about it? You don’t know whether is false or not.

It’s an entirely reasonable presumption. Assuming she’s a radical leftist, it follows that she wouldn’t want people snooping on her social media. That assumption may be wrong, but like so many other things, we have to take her word for it.

Because, woman. Ironically, that’s some serious empowerment lol.
 
Darth Omar said:
What’s ‘false’ about it? You don’t know whether is false or not.

It’s an entirely reasonable presumption. Assuming she’s a radical leftist, it follows that she wouldn’t want people snooping on her social media. That assumption may be wrong, but like so many other things, we have to take her word for it.

Because, woman. Ironically, that’s some serious empowerment lol.
Click to expand...

He said ONLY. Yes - that's a false presumption.

You're not reading it correctly. If everyone is just speculating, there are MANY possible reasons someone would want to get rid of their online presence.

Read it again.
 
anatta said:
looks like there is no corroborating facts. Which leaves testimony. One way we judge testimony is to look at motive.
One way we look at motive is does she have a political bent that would show a motive more then just she's upset.
So HIDING her politics by scrubbing means she doesn't want her politics known. why?

It appears she is an activist at minimum. We take that into account. it doesn't mean we impeach her testimony
but it does mean that is a factor to be weighed.

Her testimony is likely to be what we already know - unsubstantiated allegations.
Judge K will be denial.
they both can't be correct. so we are going to make a judgement based on all the factors
- including Judge K's support from women who say they never saw this in him -no pattern.

The Senate Judiciary committee has to act like a jury. weighing factors.
The only reason to look at her social media is to understand more about her -not some creepy voyerism
Click to expand...

Their objection is baloney.

One of the very first things that happens when an unknown hits the news [most common with mass shooters] is journalists rush to the shooter’s social media for some ‘creepy voyerism’ lol. Ford was an unknown that burst onto the scene; a really good way to learn something about a person is from their social media and if they are vocal about political stuff on the social media, you can learn a whole lot about their ideology.

But Ford scrubbed hers, so her ideology is a Black Box. Though it’s a safe bet she’s pretty liberal if she’s a college professor from Palo Alto.
 
Darth Omar said:
Maybe they like being involved in sordid political lynchings.
Click to expand...

Maybe you can explain to us how the White House, and the GOP all knew about this accusation before Kav's hearings even began and chose to ignore it and not even attempt to look into it. They knew all along and played innocent.
 
floridafan said:
And you believe what the rapist says without a hearing.
Click to expand...

42044296_2143848195942247_8024427367806009344_n.jpg
 
evince said:
dear fucking idiot,

she scrubbed her online presence because her name was leaked right after the republicans got to look at the letter


she didn't want people like you knowing what her kids look like and give your evil assed gun nutter party members an easier time shooting them.


she was correct to do so because she immediately began to get threats to kill them all


the republicans base LOVES to shoot people with their metal penis replacement


fuck you very much
Click to expand...

Who leaked the letter to the republicans??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top