Spatial Ed

Kaven-No?

Recommended Posts

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/406925-kavanaugh-accuser-breaks-silence-about-sexual-misconduct-allegations-detailed

#Me Too moment.   In Trump's America, its a rite of passage to abuse and assault women.  No wonder he was Trump's pick.

Dirty, dirty, dirty.   

Dems played this well.  Put every GOP senator on the record to support an alleged sex offender after the hearings.    Is the abused at least hot?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/406925-kavanaugh-accuser-breaks-silence-about-sexual-misconduct-allegations-detailed

#Me Too moment.   In Trump's America, its a rite of passage to abuse and assault women.  No wonder he was Trump's pick.

Dirty, dirty, dirty.   

Dems played this well.  Put every GOP senator on the record to support an alleged sex offender after the hearings.    Is the abused at least hot?  

Alleged high school event?   If she remembers the facts right, was sober, and had told a girlfriend from back in the day who will vouch for her talking about it, I suppose.   What teenage girl doesn’t talk about everything?   I know the #Me Too is very powerful and everybody is jumping on board, but recollections of actions between two kids?   Surely there is a gay Hispanic midget willing to testify about forced groping instead.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no reason to doubt her claim.

 I also see very good reason for the judge to deny her claim.

Perhaps it never happened.

 Perhaps he was drunk, and tried to move on several women that night, and either succeeded with one (or more) but not the woman in question, so of course he doesn't remember not scoring with her.

 Perhaps he wasn't drunk, but still couldn't score with her, so moved on to more ploughable fields....

Why would a man remember not getting laid, unless he did something truly heinous, like hurting, or killing, or humiliating a person?......

 I'd lay bets that he remembers that incident perfectly well, and  has friends who will back him up that it never happened.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

I see no reason to doubt her claim.

 I also see very good reason for the judge to deny her claim.

Perhaps it never happened.

 Perhaps he was drunk, and tried to move on several women that night, and either succeeded with one (or more) but not the woman in question, so of course he doesn't remember not scoring with her.

 Perhaps he wasn't drunk, but still couldn't score with her, so moved on to more ploughable fields....

Why would a man remember not getting laid, unless he did something truly heinous, like hurting, or killing, or humiliating a person?......

 I'd lay bets that he remembers that incident perfectly well, and  has friends who will back him up that it never happened.

It appears that Kavanaugh has a tenuous relationship with truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

.   

Dems played this well.  Put every GOP senator on the record to support an alleged sex offender after the hearings.    Is the abused at least hot?  

First this is WTF is wrong with Congress.  Instead of releasing this in a timely manner and let the FBI investigate- they grandstand it for political mileage— f’n leaches.

 

Second, what moves the accusation  from a he-said, she-said situation is supporting information.  

1)  she has no one saying that she told them about it when they were kids.  This is something  I CAN understand, as she may have been so upset she did not tell anyone.

2) the therapist from 2012’s notes.   And the ability to investigate the second item has been tainted by the D’s Decision to grandstand the release of the information.  

Sure would be nice if the assholes could put Country before party!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrleft8 said:

I see no reason to doubt her claim.

 I also see very good reason for the judge to deny her claim.

Perhaps it never happened.

 Perhaps he was drunk, and tried to move on several women that night, and either succeeded with one (or more) but not the woman in question, so of course he doesn't remember not scoring with her.

 Perhaps he wasn't drunk, but still couldn't score with her, so moved on to more ploughable fields....

Why would a man remember not getting laid, unless he did something truly heinous, like hurting, or killing, or humiliating a person?......

 I'd lay bets that he remembers that incident perfectly well, and  has friends who will back him up that it never happened.

Its clear the senate should delay the vote until this can be investigated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Snore said:

Sure would be nice if the assholes could put Country before party!

Like with Garland? It's a bipartisan problem for sure. Gone are the days of 90 something votes to confirm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sean said:

Like with Garland? It's a bipartisan problem for sure. Gone are the days of 90 something votes to confirm. 

Not sure a president under investigation for treason should be able to nominate a judge accused of attempted rape.  The midterms are so close, perhaps we should let the people decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Snore said:

2) the therapist from 2012’s notes.   And the ability to investigate the second item has been tainted by the D’s Decision to grandstand the release of the information.  

You give a thought why the Republicans had people that supposedly knew Kavenaugh from high school lined up to say he's a great guy?

Kavenaugh is where he is because for 15 years, maybe 25 years he put party before country. He's a partisan animal, hoist him on his own petard, and fuck him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

You give a thought why the Republicans had people that supposedly knew Kavenaugh from high school lined up to say he's a great guy?

Kavenaugh is where he is because for 15 years, maybe 25 years he put party before country. He's a partisan animal, hoist him on his own petard, and fuck him.

Republicans knew of this and pre-loaded a response.   More the reason to halt the vote to investigate.  #MeToo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having 65 women prepared to testicle..... er..... testify that Brett was a true gentleman, and never would sexually assault anyone is kind of...... Ummmm..... It's like saying...... Look! I have 65 women say I didn't do something that I maybe did, but they weren't there so they know the best!

 I could probably get 65 women to claim that I never had sex with them..... It might take a while though..... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Having 65 women prepared to testicle..... er..... testify that Brett was a true gentleman, and never would sexually assault anyone is kind of...... Ummmm..... It's like saying...... Look! I have 65 women say I didn't do something that I maybe did, but they weren't there so they know the best!

 I could probably get 65 women to claim that I never had sex with them..... It might take a while though..... :rolleyes:

That alone convinced me the GOP knew of the incident and had this ready to go.  Why didn't the GOP clear this up during the hearings?  Hmmmmm????????

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spatial Ed said:

That alone convinced me the GOP knew of the incident and had this ready to go.  Why didn't the GOP clear this up during the hearings?  Hmmmmm????????

 

It's a rabbit thing..... Shhhhhh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this beyond "he said, she said" yet? I've not followed the issue, unimpressed by the so-called accusation and that she didn't document anything for thirty years or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Is this beyond "he said, she said" yet? I've not followed the issue, unimpressed by the so-called accusation and that she didn't document anything for thirty years or more.

The fact that she brought it up to her shrink 12 or so years ago, long before he was up for the job, and it is documented that she called him out by name back then, would lend credence to the claim..... IMHOP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lark said:

Alleged high school event?   If she remembers the facts right, was sober, and had told a girlfriend from back in the day who will vouch for her talking about it, I suppose.   What teenage girl doesn’t talk about everything?   I know the #Me Too is very powerful and everybody is jumping on board, but recollections of actions between two kids?   Surely there is a gay Hispanic midget willing to testify about forced groping instead.   

Boys may forget the high spirited  cheeky passes they made when they were teenagers, but oddly enough, I've never yet met a woman that forgot being sexually assaulted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On CNN some woman supporter of Kavanaugh said the girls who attended high school with him were unanimous in their backing of him.

unfortunactely for that twit he went to an all boys school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

On CNN some woman supporter of Kavanaugh said the girls who attended high school with him were unanimous in their backing of him.

unfortunactely for that twit he went to an all boys school.

She must have forgotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Snore said:

Second, what moves the accusation  from a he-said, she-said situation is supporting information.  

1)  she has no one saying that she told them about it when they were kids.  This is something  I CAN understand, as she may have been so upset she did not tell anyone.

 2) the therapist from 2012’s notes.   And the ability to investigate the second item has been tainted by the D’s Decision to grandstand the release of the information.  

 

No it hasn't. It might make it harder for partisan animals to accept the results of an investigation because they don't like the political fallout resulting from it, but the evidence is not tainted nor their import regarding the incident. Nothing about the D's decision on when/how to release the information changes what is written in those notes, how those notes came to be, and the credibility to give those notes made before Democrats were ever involved in the matter. They either support her claim or they don't. No amount of "Democrat grandstanding" changes that.

 

2 hours ago, Snore said:

 Sure would be nice if the assholes could put Country before party!

Sure would be. Let's start with those that suggest evidence is tainted because of which party benefits from it's release; as opposed to what that evidence actually is and where it came from.  ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Is this beyond "he said, she said" yet? I've not followed the issue, unimpressed by the so-called accusation and that she didn't document anything for thirty years or more.

Not really.  You do shit, you should be held to the result.  

Shamus the bricklayer was leaning over his beer, talking to the barkeep.

for thirty years, i was a bricklayer, built the highest towers, the longest bridges, the most beautiful cathedrals.  Will I be remembered as Shamus the Bricklayer?  no.  But fuck one goat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's an intelligent woman, hopefully intelligent enough to know she'll need more than a chat with her shrink to back this up.

46 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Is this beyond "he said, she said" yet? I've not followed the issue, unimpressed by the so-called accusation and that she didn't document anything for thirty years or more.

Women that make false accusations should be prosecuted just as harshly as men who sexually assault.

Sadly, it's often the women on the outskirts of a group that get targeted for these kind of attacks, Those that tail along with a group. they have no women in that group to confide in and often no other friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kids do stupid unconscionable stuff. Is that enough to end his career now, if this story is true?

an argument can be made either way. 

If the story is true, he should be disbarred for lying about it as an adult. One of those two people is lying. That person should have their life publicly and permanently destroyed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Kids do stupid unconscionable stuff. Is that enough to end his career now, if this story is true?

an argument can be made either way. 

If the story is true, he should be disbarred for lying about it as an adult. One of those two people is lying. That person should have their life publicly and permanently destroyed. 

End his career? No, but it may be enough to cap it.  He’s being considered to decide how women are treated for the foreseeable future.  Will he treat them as objects of men to be subject to their will?  Or will he be a champion for their right to object to being treated as sexual objects?  This is a special job he seeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Kids do stupid unconscionable stuff. Is that enough to end his career now, if this story is true?

an argument can be made either way. 

If the story is true, he should be disbarred for lying about it as an adult. One of those two people is lying. That person should have their life publicly and permanently destroyed. 

Yah, it's a bit of a conundrum...Today a girl in that sort of situation has the law and social judgement behind her..back then? well unless a girl of formerly "good reputation" was "actually" raped (in 1970-90's common terms)..most of the perps would perhaps get a cold shoulder from some of their mates, the girls would know better than to risk being in that sort of situation and generally blame the "stupid girl" and cold shoulder the perps..different times..thank goodness.

I'd lay money of there being more than a few posting right here that did things that they'd not be proud of today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

End his career? No, but it may be enough to cap it.  He’s being considered to decide how women are treated for the foreseeable future.  Will he treat them as objects of men to be subject to their will?  Or will he be a champion for their right to object to being treated as sexual objects?  This is a special job he seeks.

Uh...  Am I the only one here who remembers Anita Hill?  

And Clarence Thomas was not in high school at the time.  This is going jack shit nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he lied, he should be thrown off of the bench. If he lied under oath, he should be disbarred. Let him go back to working in the executive branch if he is a liar. 

What I do not remember about Anita Hill is corroboration. But yeah, I think there will be a hearing to take her testimony so that it can be recorded and ignored. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does telling your shrink something qualify as "documentation"? 

No. It qualifies as telling one side of a story to someone who will never break confidence without permission. 

If it's "he said, she said" decades ago, and one instance without other evidentiary proof, then I'm afraid it's not enough to justify impacting a decision of this magnitude. There is no way to judge him as unfit for a position of responsibility without more substantial documentation or other instances of maltreatment of women.

If it was enough, then our president should have been disqualified immediately. We've got to argue for some degree of responsible application of public disavowal. Popularity of a hashtag shouldn't be the standard by which this is adjudicated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there was the Liar of the Senate, good ol boy Ted. Powerful men have akways gotten away with this behavior. And rather than vote at the ballot box, Joe Blow texts America Has Talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Does telling your shrink something qualify as "documentation"? 

No. It qualifies as telling one side of a story to someone who will never break confidence without permission. 

If it's "he said, she said" decades ago, and one instance without other evidentiary proof, then I'm afraid it's not enough to justify impacting a decision of this magnitude. There is no way to judge him as unfit for a position of responsibility without more substantial documentation or other instances of maltreatment of women.

If it was enough, then our president should have been disqualified immediately. We've got to argue for some degree of responsible application of public disavowal. Popularity of a hashtag shouldn't be the standard by which this is adjudicated.

Ensuring that the next member of the Supreme Court has the integrity to do the job should be the most important goal here. Instead, it seems to be the last. Jeff Flake has put a hold on the nomination until this episode can be cleaned up and I think that subpoenaing Mark Judge, the third person in that bedroom, should be the effort before the Committee. Brett Kavanaugh has already shown his ability to avoid the truth and isn't afraid to toss a lie about. Perhaps Mark Judge will have more respect for a possible jail sentence and might tell the truth about what happened. We owe to the public to try to get to that truth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

End his career? No, but it may be enough to cap it.  He’s being considered to decide how women are treated for the foreseeable future.  Will he treat them as objects of men to be subject to their will?  Or will he be a champion for their right to object to being treated as sexual objects?  This is a special job he seeks.

one assumes one would judge his past rulings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Does telling your shrink something qualify as "documentation"? 

No. It qualifies as telling one side of a story to someone who will never break confidence without permission. 

If it's "he said, she said" decades ago, and one instance without other evidentiary proof, then I'm afraid it's not enough to justify impacting a decision of this magnitude. There is no way to judge him as unfit for a position of responsibility without more substantial documentation or other instances of maltreatment of women.

 If it was enough, then our president should have been disqualified immediately. We've got to argue for some degree of responsible application of public disavowal. Popularity of a hashtag shouldn't be the standard by which this is adjudicated.

I think you're mixing up the idea of "beyond reasonable doubt" to judging whether someone is worth promoting to a powerful position.

I 100% agree that in a court of law, there isn't enough released at the moment to convict the man of a crime. However, the fact that she told a therapist about it long before there was even a hint of him being nominated for this position AND the fact that the GOP conveniently had themselves a bunch of women lined up to nay-say her strongly suggests there is more than just smoke here. Not enough to put a man in jail, but enough for people to reconsider he's worthiness for a lifetime position of power.

Sorry, but that's the way the world works. Just because there isn't the evidence to be convict someone of a crime doesn't mean there was no crime committed. The corollary of that is, when judging a person morally fit for a position of power, one shouldn't rely solely on whether or not they were convicted in a court of law of crimes. Large numbers of people from both sides of politics have, in their view, disqualified both Hillary & Trump for the role of POTUS on that standard. They voted accordingly.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shortforbob said:

one assumes one would judge his past rulings.

For a position of judicial power such as the one Kavanaugh is seeking? I'd consider evidence of his honesty and forthrightness to be fair attributes to include in whether or not someone is qualified for the role. Not saying one way or the other on the accusation itself, merely scoffing at the idea that one should preclude honesty from determining whether someone is fit for the role of Supreme Court Justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

I think you're mixing up the idea of "beyond reasonable doubt" to judging whether someone is worth promoting to a powerful position.

I 100% agree that in a court of law, there isn't enough released at the moment to convict the man of a crime. However, the fact that she told a therapist about it long before there was even a hint of him being nominated for this position AND the fact that the GOP conveniently had themselves a bunch of women lined up to nay-say her strongly suggests there is more than just smoke here. Not enough to put a man in jail, but enough for people to reconsider he's worthiness for a lifetime position of power.

Sorry, but that's the way the world works. Just because there isn't the evidence to be convict someone of a crime doesn't mean there was no crime committed. The corollary of that is, when judging a person morally fit for a position of power, one shouldn't rely solely on whether or not they were convicted in a court of law of crimes. Large numbers of people from both sides of politics have, in their view, disqualified both Hillary & Trump for the role of POTUS on that standard. They voted accordingly.

I think the GOPs efforts to respond do nothing to help a good decision get made. But their ready release of other women's accounts has no impact on how I view the scenario. I don't think that's evidence of smoke or innocence. Just political gamesmanship. Not sure why this wasn't resolved by Feinstein (I did a little reading, now) in person with Kavanaugh. Seems she could have sat the Judge down, perhaps even suggested a meeting with his accuser or her testimony so this could have been resolved in a more reliable forum. I get that Feinstein might have been trapped by having an accusation but having no permission to share her name... but as has been said, this is no average position. 

This is exactly why the Garland nomination with no vote sucks. It has irrevocably politicized the court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

Boys may forget the high spirited  cheeky passes they made when they were teenagers, but oddly enough, I've never yet met a woman that forgot being sexually assaulted.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143501/

you assume much.    It’s very possible the cheeky pass stopped when she said no, was some other geek, or is otherwise misremembered.   We have an innocence project that is slowly getting the innocent out of jail despite the conviction of a strong memory of what might have happened...but didn’t,   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Lark said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143501/

you assume much.    It’s very possible the cheeky pass stopped when she said no, was some other geek, or is otherwise misremembered.   We have an innocence project that is slowly getting the innocent out of jail despite the conviction of a strong memory of what might have happened...but didn’t,   

I assume nothing

"Boys may forget the high spirited  cheeky passes they made when they were teenagers",

 

..sometimes I wonder if you guys ever talk to women about this...We do know the difference between a playful smack on the arse, or even an unwanted goosing or tit grab... and being shouldered into a bedroom or bathroom and we do know the difference between mutually tearing off each others clothes and trying to keep our knickers on...we don't forget, misremember or misinterpret.

thanks for listening

as for your link, it'scontroversial..but I'll state this with no doubts at all..If a girl is assaulted by some one she knows..she never forgets the name. If she's assaulted by someone who's face is part of her school, work, or social circle but who's name is unknown, she'll find out their name..and won't forget it.

I don't know if this woman knew Kavanaugh by face or name at the time she claims he assaulted her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

If he lied, he should be thrown off of the bench. If he lied under oath, he should be disbarred. Let him go back to working in the executive branch if he is a liar. 

What I do not remember about Anita Hill is corroboration. But yeah, I think there will be a hearing to take her testimony so that it can be recorded and ignored. 

Maybe it will be termed a high tech lynching.  Garland looks so tame amongst these rapists and thieves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

30 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

I assume nothing

"Boys may forget the high spirited  cheeky passes they made when they were teenagers",

 

..sometimes I wonder if you guys ever talk to women about this...We do know the difference between a playful smack on the arse, or even an unwanted goosing or tit grab... and being shouldered into a bedroom or bathroom and we do know the difference between mutually tearing off each others clothes and trying to keep our knickers on...we don't forget, misremember or misinterpret.

thanks for listening

as for your link, it'scontroversial..but I'll state this with no doubts at all..If a girl is assaulted by some one she knows..she never forgets the name. If she's assaulted by someone who's face is part of her school, work, or social circle but who's name is unknown, she'll find out their name..and won't forget it.

I don't know if this woman knew Kavanaugh by face or name at the time she claims he assaulted her.

you broads are crafty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with his female party guest—he did.  

But you can't hold a Republican Supreme Court nominee responsible for the behavior of a few, sick perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole Republican party? And if the whole Republican Party is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our political system in general? I put it to you, isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

I think the GOPs efforts to respond do nothing to help a good decision get made. But their ready release of other women's accounts has no impact on how I view the scenario. I don't think that's evidence of smoke or innocence.

This is, with no offence intended, a surprisingly naive conclusion to reach. It took them some time and effort to gather those women's accounts. You don't do that in advance without knowing that this accusation was coming. You don't know this accusation was coming unless you knew there was something to hide regarding his conduct with women at the time.

As I said earlier, I don't think there is even enough here to warrant an indictment, let alone a conviction, in a court of law on this. But I don't think a conviction in a court of law is required to disqualify someone from one of the most powerful positions in the country's judicial system. If they didn't have the women's accounts ready to go - that would have let me park this as just noise. The fact the GOP prepared a specific counter for this accusation tells me they knew about it beforehand. 

Sorry, but when someone pre-prepares a defence for a specific accusation - that makes me a little suspect that the accusation has some merit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KavanNo is the perfect Trump Justice.  A real grab you by the pussy conservative, demonstrating the hardcore family values of the Trump.  His legacy will last years after Trump is long gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Spatial Ed said:

KavanNo is the perfect Trump Justice.  A real grab you by the pussy conservative, demonstrating the hardcore family values of the Trump.  His legacy will last years after Trump is long gone.

The stench of Trump will linger for decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

No it hasn't. It might make it harder for partisan animals to accept the results of an investigation because they don't like the political fallout resulting from it, but the evidence is not tainted nor their import regarding the incident. Nothing about the D's decision on when/how to release the information changes what is written in those notes, how those notes came to be, and the credibility to give those notes made before Democrats were ever involved in the matter. They either support her claim or they don't. No amount of "Democrat grandstanding" changes that.

 

Sure would be. Let's start with those that suggest evidence is tainted because of which party benefits from it's release; as opposed to what that evidence actually is and where it came from.  ;) 

First - although not a LEO,  it is obviously cleaner for an investigator to do his/her job before witnesses get presssure from outside influences.

 

Second- I never rejected anything- because of its source, only the delivery.

 

Third-  your a f’n Ozzie—- so sod the F-off!  Please focus on being an activist to solve the problems of your racist government.  Your  treatment of the indigenous people is only now reaching acceptable levels.  Of course we could talk about your disgusting treatment of illegals, it makes Trump look like Mother Teresa.  Fuck we even took some off your hands!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Snore said:

First - although not a LEO,  it is obviously cleaner for an investigator to do his/her job before witnesses get presssure from outside influences.

Never said otherwise. I'm glad you've beaten that strawman within an inch of it's life. Let me know when you're done with it and plan to return to what I actually posted.

 

3 minutes ago, Snore said:

Second- I never rejected anything- because of its source, only the delivery.

You're stating the evidence is tainted, not because of the source (therapist's notes), but because of the delivery (Democrat grandstanding). Do you read your drivel before uploading it or does the excitement you get from pressing "Submit" get too much for you?  :rolleyes: 

 

3 minutes ago, Snore said:

Third-  your a f’n Ozzie—- so sod the F-off!  Please focus on being an activist to solve the problems of your racist government.  Your  treatment of the indigenous people is only now reaching acceptable levels.  Of course we could talk about your disgusting treatment of illegals, it makes Trump look like Mother Teresa.  Fuck we even took some off your hands!

Feel free. I am disgusted with the treatment of asylum seekers by my government too. Have said so many times and vote accordingly. Thing is, I can walk and chew bubble-gum at the same time. It's a shame your personal limitations don't allow you to think about more than one subject in any given hour. You have my sympathies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the last-minute document dump suggests collusion if not conspiracy among the top GOPers. Where's the Deep State when we need them?

Both teams depend on the stupidity on the average citizen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Even the last-minute document dump suggests collusion if not conspiracy among the top GOPers. Where's the Deep State when we need them?

Both teams depend on the stupidity on the average citizen.

 

the alleged timeline I've seen is the alleged victim wrote a letter to her senator and representative in July. Nothing much happened until recently when somehow the existence got leaked to the press, at which point it got referred to the FBI, lies were spread, and eventually the victim came forward because press were starting to hound her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

the alleged timeline I've seen is the alleged victim wrote a letter to her senator and representative in July. Nothing much happened until recently when somehow the existence got leaked to the press, at which point it got referred to the FBI, lies were spread, and eventually the victim came forward because press were starting to hound her.

If true, she's a patriot. The country wasn't ready for Anita Hill but times change. Bigly.

"When the people lead, the leaders will follow."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

The country wasn't ready for Anita Hill but times change. Bigly.

#MeToo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The #metoo movement is running out of steam, a few high profile cases of this type, he said-she said, going nowhere will put it on the backburner till something truly horrific excites the viewers again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

Having 65 women prepared to testicle..... er..... testify that Brett was a true gentleman, and never would sexually assault anyone is kind of...... Ummmm..... It's like saying...... Look! I have 65 women say I didn't do something that I maybe did, but they weren't there so they know the best!

 I could probably get 65 women to claim that I never had sex with them..... It might take a while though..... :rolleyes:

There are still a great many millions of women we've not heard from as to whether or not Kavenaugh tried to rape them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, boys...... if there wasn't a witch hunt before -  we have clear evidence there is one now.  

An incident from HS between two drunk kids that happened over 30 years ago at a freaking house party????  YGBFKM!  We truly have sunk to new depths of political mudslinging.  

By all accounts, Kavanaugh has gone out of his way to hire and promote women and minorities on his staff.  And in an age of powerful men trying to sleep with their subordinates or sexually harass them, he seems to have a spotless record on that front.  In fact beyond spotless as he's gone well overboard to make sure that women are valued.  That doesn't sound like a kid who would pin a girl down on a bed against her will.  I don't know what happened in that BR and neither do any of you throwing spears.

But there comes a point where you have to look at the whole of a person's behavioral track record over a very long period of time and compare it to one woman's allegation that is suspiciously convenient at a moment in history where the D's have everything to gain by "leaking" this.   She had 30 fucking years to say something!  She had time to say something when he was confirmed to the Appeals Court.  At least Anita Hill had the guts to say something when it was relevant and recent.  

I think DemocRATs will pay for this nasty BS in the midterms.  Its nothing but dirty tricks, IMHO, and its this sort of stuff that disgusts me about US politics.  I despise the mindset that if you can't get your way because you don't have the votes, you will pull out every dirty trick to get your way.  This hail mary pass is going to backfire on the D's, me thinks.  I hope it fucking blows up in your face.  :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so Jeff has accepted there was an incident , meanwhile Kavanaugh denies it :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Mid said:

so Jeff has accepted there was an incident , meanwhile Kavanaugh denies it :rolleyes:

I have????  Where did you get that from????  I'm simply saying this, whatever "this" was - was over 30 years ago.  If by incident, you mean they were both at the party together, or attended the same HS together - then yes I accept there was an incident. I don't think kananaigh is denying he was there at the party.  

Let's say for argument's sake there was an "incident".  Maybe they were both drunk and they were making out and and petting and she changed her mind and he didn't get the message immediately.  Yes, I know, shocking behavior from a 16 year old boy with blue balls.  No one is claiming that he raped her or even got any further than lying on top of her on the bed and then she got free and left.  Let's say that all happened.....  So what?  Does that really DSQ him from the bench or any other high office?  Especially given he seems to have spent his entire adult life dedicated to advancing women and minorities in his workplace and by all accounts has been a model human being????  Maybe he had an epiphany that night and vowed to turn his life around and go out of his way to treat women with dignity and respect.  Which he seems like he definitely achieved.  But despite all that mountain of actual stellar behavior - we are going to destroy a man's career based on a she said/her said allegation from FUCKING HIGH SCHOOL?????

An FBI investigation into two drunken HS kids filled with hormones and beer 30 years ago????  REALLY????  Is this what we have sunk to?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

By all accounts, Kavanaugh has gone out of his way to hire and promote women and minorities on his staff.  And in an age of powerful men trying to sleep with their subordinates or sexually harass them, he seems to have a spotless record on that front.  In fact beyond spotless as he's gone well overboard to make sure that women are valued.  That doesn't sound like a kid who would pin a girl down on a bed against her will.

What a load of self-indulgent, shallow-minded twaddle. "He couldn't have pinned a girl down as a teenager, look at how he treats women decades later". Can you even hear yourself on this? Christ on a bloody crutch.

And no, that doesn't mean that I buy a conveniently timed revelation. Were it simply that revelation, as I said earlier, I'd have dismissed it as nothing more than the shit-slinging you portray it as. Most people would have. What makes people pay attention to this one is that the GOP had a defence against the claim already lined up. The guy gets accused and has a ready to go line up of women saying he didn't rape them? Come on, princess, even you have to think that's a little fucking weird.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I have????  Where did you get that from????

 

29 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

An incident from HS between two drunk kids that happened over 30 years ago at a freaking house party???? 

 

.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

What makes people pay attention to this one is that the GOP had a defence against the claim already lined up. The guy gets accused and has a ready to go line up of women saying he didn't rape them? Come on, princess, even you have to think that's a little fucking weird.

 

BS!  What evidence do you have they were "already lined up"???  I recall prior to the confirmation hearings he already had many former collegues "lined up" to testify on his behalf.  So I can't imagine this would have been hard to put together on short notice once the allegations dropped.  And maybe the GOP got wind of the letter ahead of time and worked to get their ducks in a row should it go public.  I don't see that as any indication of guilt on his part.  That's just good sense.  Fuck, you seem to think that the congress is able to keep a secret.  If the rest of the Dems knew about the letter, I guarantee someone on the R side knew as well.  

Straws....  Grasp them, you must.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mid said:
7 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I have????  Where did you get that from????

 

33 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

An incident from HS between two drunk kids that happened over 30 years ago at a freaking house party???? 

 

.....

Asked and answered....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Asked and answered....

In a statement, Kavanaugh said, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-sexual-misconduct-allegation-against-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-stirs-tension-among-democrats-in-congress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mid said:

In a statement, Kavanaugh said, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-sexual-misconduct-allegation-against-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-stirs-tension-among-democrats-in-congress

Yeah, and????  How does that contradict what I wrote???

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kRist on a bike , you are at odds with Kavanaugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mid said:

so Jeff has accepted there was an incident , meanwhile Kavanaugh denies it :rolleyes:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mid said:

kRist on a bike , you are at odds with Kavanaugh.

Krist on a bike indeed.  RIF!!!  GO back and read what I fucking wrote.  Nothing in that story says he denies being there at the party or ever meeting her.  He said he denies the "Allegations" as in "no I didn't hold her down like she claimed".  Fuck me, you are as stupidly pedantic as bent is.  Is it a pusstralia thing????/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mid said:

 

DO YOU THINK SHOUTING IN BIG FONTS MAKES IT ANYMORE TRUE????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Feinstein and Grassley knew this moment was coming and that it was going to be ugly.  The timing was staged - that's politics.  The fallout isn't although both political machines will be working their media minions furiously.  All the votes that mater are going to be waiting for the phone calls to sniff the winds and pick accordingly.  

Unless the FBI can actually uncover some new forensic data or a new witness, it's going to come down to Kavenaugh and Judge's version versus Ford's version of what happened 35 years ago.  The republicans tried to play politics and jam this through before the midterms and the democrats played politics and threw a sabo into the machine.

Personally, i doubt there's going to be much in the way of fact about the facts - they'll be a TON of analysis about represessed memories, displacement, blah blah and suddenly everyone will be an expert on psychology.

I think the republicans will push the vote to beyond the midterms and stick it right in front of the continuing resolution to keep the government going to keep the filibuster threat at bay.  He'll get approved in the lame duck session.  If, by chance, the republicans solidify their senate hold, there's a chance they'll actually withdraw Kavenaugh and nominate a MORE conservative judge.  That's the danger that the Dems face.  

There is another political issue that's of debatable merit - by doing this now, the Dems can make this election about the Supreme court which I think will energize both bases.  I think that's actually a mistake - they should be making this about Trump.  Disaffected republicans may sit on their hands about a Trump referendum election but they're more inclined to vote if it's actually about the supreme court.  Dems who aren't motivated at this point aren't going to get MORE motivated by this.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

Both Feinstein and Grassley knew this moment was coming and that it was going to be ugly.  The timing was staged - that's politics.  The fallout isn't although both political machines will be working their media minions furiously.  All the votes that mater are going to be waiting for the phone calls to sniff the winds and pick accordingly.  

Unless the FBI can actually uncover some new forensic data or a new witness, it's going to come down to Kavenaugh and Judge's version versus Ford's version of what happened 35 years ago.  The republicans tried to play politics and jam this through before the midterms and the democrats played politics and threw a sabo into the machine.

Personally, i doubt there's going to be much in the way of fact about the facts - they'll be a TON of analysis about represessed memories, displacement, blah blah and suddenly everyone will be an expert on psychology.

I think the republicans will push the vote to beyond the midterms and stick it right in front of the continuing resolution to keep the government going to keep the filibuster threat at bay.

 

Yep.  I still am convinced this will backfire on the D's.  If there is one thing the R base is united on is the concept of SCOTUS nominations.  Its THE ONLY reason evangelicals held their nose and voted for the cheetolini.  I think this will motivate the base to get out and vote big in the midterms when there might have been a slacking of enthusiasm before this dropped.  It will remind them vividly why voting for their congress critters is so important - i.e. so they can get their favored people onto the bench where they can affect policy for decades rather than just the current election cycle.  I suspect its partly why Feinstein sat on this, because she knew this to be true.  In Middy's article from the New Yorker - she said it was a losing issue for Dems.  I think she is right on this one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

What a load of self-indulgent, shallow-minded twaddle. "He couldn't have pinned a girl down as a teenager, look at how he treats women decades later". Can you even hear yourself on this? Christ on a bloody crutch.

And no, that doesn't mean that I buy a conveniently timed revelation. Were it simply that revelation, as I said earlier, I'd have dismissed it as nothing more than the shit-slinging you portray it as. Most people would have. What makes people pay attention to this one is that the GOP had a defence against the claim already lined up. The guy gets accused and has a ready to go line up of women saying he didn't rape them? Come on, princess, even you have to think that's a little fucking weird.

 

Bent - does this standard apply to Bill Shorten? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yep.  I still am convinced this will backfire on the D's.  If there is one thing the R base is united on is the concept of SCOTUS nominations.  Its THE ONLY reason evangelicals held their nose and voted for the cheetolini.  I think this will motivate the base to get out and vote big in the midterms when there might have been a slacking of enthusiasm before this dropped.  It will remind them vividly why voting for their congress critters is so important - i.e. so they can get their favored people onto the bench where they can affect policy for decades rather than just the current election cycle.  I suspect its partly why Feinstein sat on this, because she knew this to be true.  In Middy's article from the New Yorker - she said it was a losing issue for Dems.  I think she is right on this one.  

I'm not so sure. The base you describe is going to support Trump 100%, or whomever is the GOP nominee, and in consistent numbers. If they do go ahead and vote on Thursday, every aye vote will become a target for the Me Too movement and send a powerful message that the the old, white, GOP establishment just doesn't care about women's issues. There are a lot of young, female millennials out there, and it wouldn't do to piss them off.

Of course, I could be wrong about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I have????  Where did you get that from????  I'm simply saying this, whatever "this" was - was over 30 years ago.  If by incident, you mean they were both at the party together, or attended the same HS together - then yes I accept there was an incident. I don't think kananaigh is denying he was there at the party.  

Let's say for argument's sake there was an "incident".  Maybe they were both drunk and they were making out and and petting and she changed her mind and he didn't get the message immediately.  Yes, I know, shocking behavior from a 16 year old boy with blue balls.  No one is claiming that he raped her or even got any further than lying on top of her on the bed and then she got free and left.  Let's say that all happened.....  So what?  Does that really DSQ him from the bench or any other high office?  Especially given he seems to have spent his entire adult life dedicated to advancing women and minorities in his workplace and by all accounts has been a model human being????  Maybe he had an epiphany that night and vowed to turn his life around and go out of his way to treat women with dignity and respect.  Which he seems like he definitely achieved.  But despite all that mountain of actual stellar behavior - we are going to destroy a man's career based on a she said/her said allegation from FUCKING HIGH SCHOOL?????

An FBI investigation into two drunken HS kids filled with hormones and beer 30 years ago????  REALLY????  Is this what we have sunk to?

If it played out as you suggest, he should be removed from the bench for lying about it as an adult. If he lied about it under oath he should be disbarred. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Remodel said:

I'm not so sure. The base you describe is going to support Trump 100%, or whomever is the GOP nominee, and in consistent numbers. If they do go ahead and vote on Thursday, every aye vote will become a target for the Me Too movement and send a powerful message that the the old, white, GOP establishment just doesn't care about women's issues. There are a lot of young, female millennials out there, and it wouldn't do to piss them off.

Of course, I could be wrong about that.

I never said anything about pushing the vote through on Thursday.  I have no issue with a pause to investigate.  What I'm talking about is if the vote is pushed to after the Midterms or worst case his nomination gets the boot, then I think GOP voters will come out in droves.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

If it played out as you suggest, he should be removed from the bench for lying about it as an adult. If he lied about it under oath he should be disbarred. 

I'm not discussing his denial of it.  I'm talking about the alleged incident itself.  Is that DSQing from something you did in HS?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm not discussing his denial of it.  I'm talking about the alleged incident itself.  Is that DSQing from something you did in HS?  

I said last night that it is debatable, whether an act done as a kid should destroy his life now. There are good arguments either way. Kids do stupid shit, that’s why they are allowed to seal their records. I think we need to know more at this point.

But liars do not belong on the bench, especially the highest bench in the land. And we know that lying under oath is grounds for impeachment.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Murkowski and Collins. Those two have some tough choices to make. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will probably never know if the allegation is true or if this is another dirty trick. Proceed with the confirmation and if it's clear he doesn't have the votes withdraw Kavanaugh and nominate someone else. Even if Democrates take the house Republicans still have 3 months with a majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ford says she’s willing to testify. The thought of angry white male GOP Senators attacking her is delicious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps K had that epiphany. I think it far more likely that he has had more than that one "incident," if he actually had that one. The trickle precedes the flood. Cf Weird Weinstein et al. This isn't boys will be boys.  Boys don't rape girls. That isn't boyish behavior.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm not discussing his denial of it.  I'm talking about the alleged incident itself.  Is that DSQing from something you did in HS?  

You have very strange and vivid rape fantasies.  Of course you accept the accusation as true.  Boy will be boys.  And rape is fine amongst intoxicated participants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Sean said:

Ford says she’s willing to testify. The thought of angry white male GOP Senators attacking her is delicious. 

Identity politics is getting old. What does their race and gender really have to do with the issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Identity politics is getting old. What does their race and gender really have to do with the issue?

Should we really get to the bottom of this?  I'm sure we all should understand who Trump nominated.  Even the McTurtle said during Obama, that the people should have a say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I said last night that it is debatable, whether an act done as a kid should destroy his life now. There are good arguments either way. Kids do stupid shit, that’s why they are allowed to seal their records. I think we need to know more at this point.

But liars do not belong on the bench, especially the highest bench in the land. And we know that lying under oath is grounds for impeachment.

 

There is an avenue where both accounts are right.  IF they went into the rooms to make out and he (being a 16 y/o) tried to touch her body under the bathing suit she was wearing, both stories start to line up.  She could perceive it as “tried to rip my clothes off” and he as a HS make out session.     Since she will now be testifying, should be interesting.

 

I believe the WP article mentioned her revealing this to HER therapist in 2012.  Access to those notes, could be rather informative.

 

So instead of a clean analytical investigation, the politicians have (once again) made this into a stage show.  Complete with the alleged victim on nationwide TV, instead of quietly talking to an investigator who does not have an agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

You have very strange and vivid rape fantasies.  Of course you accept the accusation as true.  Boy will be boys.  And rape is fine amongst intoxicated participants.

How did alleged groping become rape?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s their righteous anger that is of interest to me.  The fact that that they’re bitter old rich white men is the icing on top

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean said:

Ford says she’s willing to testify. The thought of angry white male GOP Senators attacking her is delicious. 

Um..maybe try purple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

So he broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with his female party guest—he did.  

But you can't hold a Republican Supreme Court nominee responsible for the behavior of a few, sick perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole Republican party? And if the whole Republican Party is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our political system in general? I put it to you, isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!

Send cash for keyboard please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean said:

Ford says she’s willing to testify. The thought of angry white male GOP Senators attacking her is delicious. 

She is about to get what she was worried about getting.  A good old fashioned public raping.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/406956-trump-admin-planning-to-question-credibility-of-kavanaugh-sexual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Snore said:

How did alleged groping become rape?

Attempted rape. 

So, is this your idea of “groping”? -

“Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.

Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh's hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites