🔥 | Latest

Tumblr, Blog, and Com: zagreus: joyfullyyouniquefangirl: zagreus: your crimes are known. the frog council sits in judgement. I opened Tumblr and almost screamed the guilt has hold of you. confess
Tumblr, Blog, and Com: zagreus:

joyfullyyouniquefangirl:

zagreus:


 your crimes are known. the frog council sits in judgement.
I opened Tumblr and almost screamed

the guilt has hold of you. confess

zagreus: joyfullyyouniquefangirl: zagreus: your crimes are known. the frog council sits in judgement. I opened Tumblr and almost scream...

Anaconda, Anna, and Community: hobbit-hole if i had to get in a fistfight with any member of the fellowship it would be Frodo because i would easily win hobbit-hole all i am saying is that he would ostensibly be the easiest one to take on in a fight given that he's like three feet tall and has led a life of (physical) leisure compared to all of the others due to his standing as a gentlehobbit legolas, aragorn, and gimli are all used to combat, sam works as a gardener merry and pippin often gallivant off and get into mischief so they have the advantage of experience in whatever it is they've gotten up to/would possibly fight dirty, gandalf is gandalf so while weapons are out of the question i suppose that depends on if magic is involved. i don't think i could take him without magic even if he is old because he's a very large guy, but maybe it would be my knuckles against Frodo's baby soft poet hands, plus rve got the additional height and fighting experience. i just think that he would be the easiest to win against in hand-to-hand combat out of the rest of them. also he isn't real so he can't offer a rebuttal to my claim penny-anna you're absolutely correct BUT wanting to fight Frodo makes you a monster D hobbit-hole this has nothing to do with WANTING to fight Frodo, i just think he would be easiest for me to beat in a fight with no weapons. unless he utilized his very large feet, but i think he's too polite to do that because it's a fist fight and that would be considered playing dirty penny anna for someone who doesn't want to fight Frodo you sure have put a lot of thought into fighting Frodo. animate-mush OP is wrong though: you fight Pippin. First off, Pippin has it coming, so you won't be fighting your conscience at the same time Secondly, Pippin is a spoiled rich kid. He's no less gentry than Frodo is, but Frodo works out and is shown to have better stamina, at least at the outset. Pippin is also both the stupidest and the slowest of the hobbits. They both nearly beat one (1) troll, so that's comparable, but Pippin appears not to have got a single hit in against the orcs that captured them while Merry was cutting off hands like a boss. Pippin also straight-up tell Bergil that he's not a fighter Also there's a nonzero chance that Frodo will just straight up curse you (if the guilt of fighting Frodo isn't enough if a curse by itself) And, of course, if you try to fight Frodo, you will 100% end up fighting Sam, and he will wreck you (and you'll deserve it, you penny-anna Also: if you fight Frodo you'll have a very angry Sam & possibly also the entire Fellowship to deal with BUT if you fight Pippin they will probably cheer you on ainurs Bold of you to assume one could attempt to fight Pippin and NOT instantly be killed by Boromir feynites So here's the thing - you absolutely DO NOT want to try and fight Frodo or Pippin because they are going to be protected by the rest of the Fellowship which basically exists to stop asshole Big People from picking on the hobbits. Folk might talk a big game but when the chips are down, you are not going to lay a single hand on any of the hobbits. Either you'll find yourself immediately fighting all four of them or else you'll move to land your first hit and suddenly Aragorn will side-tackle you into the trees. And he probably hits like a freight train tbh. So here's what you do You fight Legolas. The thing about fist-fighting Legolas of course is that you will lose. This is not a fight you're gonna win no matter what. But Legolas has his standing competition with Gimili, so once the challenge is issued, he's not gonna let anyone else step in and fight you either. No one is liable to volunteer on his behalf, either, so you will only end up fighting the one member of the fellowship. If you are lucky he might also take his shirt off. Bonus! Anyway Legolas will mop the floor with you, but he's also already convinced you're weaker than him anyway because you're not an elf, so he's gonna go kind of easy on you And when you lose he will be all snide and superior about it, which means everyone in the fellowship is gonna sympathize with you, and Gimli will probably challenge him on your behalf afterwards, but here's the key thing You will have lost a fist-fight to an immortal warrior prince That's a way better loss to cop to than that time you tried to fistfight a pudgy gentlehobbit and got beaten to the point of unconsciousness by his gardener yeah? icescrabblerjerky okay so tolkien tumblr is fast becoming my fave tumblr community thank you thank you all you are the true fellowship here. Source:hobbit-hole #mmmmmmmmmmhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 32,148 notes The Tolkien discourse is getting violent
Anaconda, Anna, and Community: hobbit-hole
 if i had to get in a fistfight with any member of the fellowship it would be Frodo
 because i would easily win
 hobbit-hole
 all i am saying is that he would ostensibly be the easiest one to take on in a fight
 given that he's like three feet tall and has led a life of (physical) leisure
 compared to all of the others due to his standing as a gentlehobbit
 legolas, aragorn, and gimli are all used to combat, sam works as a gardener
 merry and pippin often gallivant off and get into mischief so they have the
 advantage of experience in whatever it is they've gotten up to/would possibly
 fight dirty, gandalf is gandalf so while weapons are out of the question i suppose
 that depends on if magic is involved. i don't think i could take him without magic
 even if he is old because he's a very large guy, but maybe
 it would be my knuckles against Frodo's baby soft poet hands, plus rve got the
 additional height and fighting experience. i just think that he would be the easiest
 to win against in hand-to-hand combat out of the rest of them. also he isn't real
 so he can't offer a rebuttal to my claim
 penny-anna
 you're absolutely correct BUT wanting to fight Frodo makes you a monster D
 hobbit-hole
 this has nothing to do with WANTING to fight Frodo, i just think he would be
 easiest for me to beat in a fight with no weapons. unless he utilized his very
 large feet, but i think he's too polite to do that because it's a fist fight and that
 would be considered playing dirty
 penny anna
 for someone who doesn't want to fight Frodo you sure have put a lot of thought
 into fighting Frodo.
 animate-mush
 OP is wrong though: you fight Pippin.
 First off, Pippin has it coming, so you won't be fighting your conscience at the
 same time
 Secondly, Pippin is a spoiled rich kid. He's no less gentry than Frodo is, but
 Frodo works out and is shown to have better stamina, at least at the outset.
 Pippin is also both the stupidest and the slowest of the hobbits. They both nearly
 beat one (1) troll, so that's comparable, but Pippin appears not to have got a
 single hit in against the orcs that captured them while Merry was cutting off
 hands like a boss. Pippin also straight-up tell Bergil that he's not a fighter
 Also there's a nonzero chance that Frodo will just straight up curse you (if the
 guilt of fighting Frodo isn't enough if a curse by itself)
 And, of course, if you try to fight Frodo, you will 100% end up fighting Sam, and
 he will wreck you (and you'll deserve it, you
 penny-anna
 Also: if you fight Frodo you'll have a very angry Sam & possibly also the entire
 Fellowship to deal with BUT if you fight Pippin they will probably cheer you on
 ainurs
 Bold of you to assume one could attempt to fight Pippin and NOT instantly be
 killed by Boromir
 feynites
 So here's the thing - you absolutely DO NOT want to try and fight Frodo or
 Pippin because they are going to be protected by the rest of the Fellowship
 which basically exists to stop asshole Big People from picking on the hobbits.
 Folk might talk a big game but when the chips are down, you are not going to lay
 a single hand on any of the hobbits. Either you'll find yourself immediately
 fighting all four of them or else you'll move to land your first hit and suddenly
 Aragorn will side-tackle you into the trees. And he probably hits like a freight
 train tbh.
 So here's what you do
 You fight Legolas.
 The thing about fist-fighting Legolas of course is that you will lose. This is not a
 fight you're gonna win no matter what. But Legolas has his standing competition
 with Gimili, so once the challenge is issued, he's not gonna let anyone else step
 in and fight you either. No one is liable to volunteer on his behalf, either, so you
 will only end up fighting the one member of the fellowship. If you are lucky he
 might also take his shirt off. Bonus!
 Anyway
 Legolas will mop the floor with you, but he's also already convinced you're
 weaker than him anyway because you're not an elf, so he's gonna go kind of
 easy on you And when you lose he will be all snide and superior about it, which
 means everyone in the fellowship is gonna sympathize with you, and Gimli will
 probably challenge him on your behalf afterwards, but here's the key thing
 You will have lost a fist-fight to an immortal warrior prince
 That's a way better loss to cop to than that time you tried to fistfight a pudgy
 gentlehobbit and got beaten to the point of unconsciousness by his gardener
 yeah?
 icescrabblerjerky
 okay so tolkien tumblr is fast becoming my fave tumblr community thank you
 thank you all you are the true fellowship here.
 Source:hobbit-hole #mmmmmmmmmmhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
 32,148 notes
The Tolkien discourse is getting violent

The Tolkien discourse is getting violent

Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the
 Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to
 Get What they Want
 Cops routinely break the law. Here's how.
 By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015
libertarirynn:

gvldngrl:

wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.
2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)
4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.
5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.
6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.
7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).
Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.
Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want

One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else


Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.


Important 


Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.

libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced t...

Bodies , Books, and Click: WATCH LIVE Senate confirms Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court NNIU.S. World Politics Business Opinion Health Entertainment| Style | Travel Sports Video Live TV | U.S. Edition + KAVANAUGH CONFIRMED HUFFPOSTI EDITION BREAKING NEWS SUPREME FARCE: KAV CONFIRMED set station npr shop sign in news arts&life music topics programs & podcasts BREAKING NEWS Hon. Bret M.Kavanaugh Win McNamee/Getty Images POLITICS Kavanaugh Confirmed To Supreme Court The federal appeals court judge was confirmed after a narrow Senate vote largely along party lines Saturday afternoon that ended a weeks-long battle over his controversial nomination. Demonstrators Gather At U.S. Capitol In Anticipation Of Kavanaugh's Confirmation BBC Sign in News SportWeather Shop Earth Travel NEWS Home Video World US&Canada UK Business Tech ScienceStories Ent US & Canada Brett Kavanaugh nomination: Victory for Trump in Supreme Court vote 6 minutes ago Share E a ESPAÑOL 中文(CHINESE) ENGLISH SUBSCRIBE NOW LOG IN The VewHork Times Saturday, October 6, 2018 Today's Paper World U.S Politics N.Y. Business Opinion Tech Science Health Sports Arts Books Style Food Travel Magazine Magazine Real Estate Video Got a confidential news tip? Do you have the next big story? Share it with our journalists. S.&P 500 Sign Up for 'Weeknight Recipes' Face down a busy week by cooking a big batch of chili 55 F 55 52 Dow Senate Confirms Kavanaugh 50-48, After Bitter Partisan Battle A deeply divided Senate voted on Saturday to confirm Judge Brett M Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, delivering a victory to President Trump and ending a rancorous Washington battle. Majority of votes needed YES NO Pres. Republicans 4901 Democrats 1 48 O Total 50 48 1 The final result was expected; all senators had announced their intentions by Friday, after the nomination cleared a crucial procedural hurdle. The Vote Count This is how each senator voted on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Just Now Bitter Tenor of Senate Reflects a Nation at Odds With Itself The battle over the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh has exposed a climate of partisan distrust rivaled by few other moments in the recent past. 2h ago 6m ago Click to Listen After a highly contentious nomination process, senators deliver the final vote on the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images scribbledsilence: A woman came forward and pointed out her assaulter because she believed that it was her civic duty.A woman came forward with her allegations after years of getting therapy for the trauma she had experienced as a child.A woman came forward despite how scared she was to face her assaulter in front of a nation.A woman came forward and made a testament in front of a committee as the whole world watch, despite the hate and death threats she was getting.A woman came forward and spoke up about her assault, about what her accuser had done in detail, and had thousands upon thousands of people standing by her. Supporting her. Believing her.And yet,many people still did not listen.many people still called her a liar.many people still threatened her.many people still supported her abuser.many people still believed the word of a man over the word of a woman. Of a victim.Next time you think men are the victims and women have everything to gain by speaking up about their assault, please explain to me when you have ever seen that to be the case.All I see is that a women spoke up about her sexual assault, and yet she was pushed aside and ignored as her abuser was granted a lifetime position in the highest court in the country.All I see is an abuser has been appointed to a position in which he would be able to further control women and their rights to their own bodies. All I see is another reason why women are so frightened to and believe that they shouldn’t speak up about their assault.Because it wouldn’t matter.Because nothing would happened.Because you failed her. A woman came forward with an accusation she had absolutely no way of backing up.People did listen. They gave her a congressional hearing for fucks sake, an opportunity I might add she almost refused.She could not prove her claims. People she claimed were witnesses said they had no recollection of the event she put forward. Literally nothing she presented was evidence of any sort and her story was fraught with inconsistencies and vague details.Another woman came forward with a story even more completely uncorroborated. She was so unsure it was even Kavanagh who assaulted her that it took almost a week for her to convince herself it was him, and once again nobody remembers a thing.An investigation was made, people weighed the lack of evidence and determined that there was no cause to prevent the man from taking the job because we still live in a country where you should be viewed as innocent unless there’s actual evidence of your guilt.It’s not that deep.
Bodies , Books, and Click: WATCH LIVE
 Senate confirms Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court
 NNIU.S. World Politics Business Opinion Health Entertainment| Style | Travel Sports Video
 Live TV
 | U.S. Edition +
 KAVANAUGH CONFIRMED

 HUFFPOSTI
 EDITION
 BREAKING NEWS
 SUPREME FARCE:
 KAV CONFIRMED

 set station npr shop
 sign in
 news arts&life music topics programs & podcasts
 BREAKING NEWS
 Hon. Bret M.Kavanaugh
 Win McNamee/Getty Images
 POLITICS
 Kavanaugh Confirmed To Supreme Court
 The federal appeals court judge was confirmed after a narrow Senate vote largely along party lines Saturday afternoon
 that ended a weeks-long battle over his controversial nomination.
 Demonstrators Gather At U.S. Capitol In Anticipation Of Kavanaugh's Confirmation

 BBC
 Sign in
 News SportWeather Shop Earth Travel
 NEWS
 Home Video World US&Canada UK Business Tech ScienceStories Ent
 US & Canada
 Brett Kavanaugh nomination: Victory for
 Trump in Supreme Court vote
 6 minutes ago
 Share

 E a
 ESPAÑOL
 中文(CHINESE)
 ENGLISH
 SUBSCRIBE NOW
 LOG IN
 The VewHork Times
 Saturday, October 6, 2018
 Today's Paper
 World U.S Politics N.Y. Business Opinion Tech Science Health Sports Arts Books Style Food Travel Magazine Magazine Real Estate Video
 Got a confidential news tip?
 Do you have the next big story? Share it with our
 journalists.
 S.&P 500
 Sign Up for 'Weeknight Recipes'
 Face down a busy week by cooking a big batch of chili
 55 F 55 52
 Dow
 Senate Confirms Kavanaugh 50-48, After Bitter Partisan Battle
 A deeply divided Senate voted on
 Saturday to confirm Judge Brett M
 Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,
 delivering a victory to President Trump
 and ending a rancorous Washington
 battle.
 Majority of
 votes needed YES NO Pres.
 Republicans 4901
 Democrats 1 48 O
 Total 50 48 1
 The final result was expected; all
 senators had announced their
 intentions by Friday, after the
 nomination cleared a crucial procedural
 hurdle.
 The Vote Count
 This is how each senator
 voted on the Supreme
 Court nomination of Judge
 Brett Kavanaugh.
 Just Now
 Bitter Tenor of Senate
 Reflects a Nation at
 Odds With Itself
 The battle over the
 confirmation of Brett
 Kavanaugh has exposed a
 climate of partisan distrust
 rivaled by few other
 moments in the recent past.
 2h ago
 6m ago
 Click to Listen
 After a highly contentious nomination process, senators deliver the final vote on the confirmation
 of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
scribbledsilence:

A woman came forward and pointed out her assaulter because she believed that it was her civic duty.A woman came forward with her allegations after years of getting therapy for the trauma she had experienced as a child.A woman came forward despite how scared she was to face her assaulter in front of a nation.A woman came forward and made a testament in front of a committee as the whole world watch, despite the hate and death threats she was getting.A woman came forward and spoke up about her assault, about what her accuser had done in detail, and had thousands upon thousands of people standing by her. Supporting her. Believing her.And yet,many people still did not listen.many people still called her a liar.many people still threatened her.many people still supported her abuser.many people still believed the word of a man over the word of a woman. Of a victim.Next time you think men are the victims and women have everything to gain by speaking up about their assault, please explain to me when you have ever seen that to be the case.All I see is that a women spoke up about her sexual assault, and yet she was pushed aside and ignored as her abuser was granted a lifetime position in the highest court in the country.All I see is an abuser has been appointed to a position in which he would be able to further control women and their rights to their own bodies.

All I see is another reason why women are so frightened to and believe that they shouldn’t speak up about their assault.Because it wouldn’t matter.Because nothing would happened.Because you failed her.

A woman came forward with an accusation she had absolutely no way of backing up.People did listen. They gave her a congressional hearing for fucks sake, an opportunity I might add she almost refused.She could not prove her claims. People she claimed were witnesses said they had no recollection of the event she put forward. Literally nothing she presented was evidence of any sort and her story was fraught with inconsistencies and vague details.Another woman came forward with a story even more completely uncorroborated. She was so unsure it was even Kavanagh who assaulted her that it took almost a week for her to convince herself it was him, and once again nobody remembers a thing.An investigation was made, people weighed the lack of evidence and determined that there was no cause to prevent the man from taking the job because we still live in a country where you should be viewed as innocent unless there’s actual evidence of your guilt.It’s not that deep.

scribbledsilence: A woman came forward and pointed out her assaulter because she believed that it was her civic duty.A woman came forward w...