Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

Burgold

By Burgold
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

bearrock

bearrock

Posted
Posted
Just now, skinny21 said:

In that sense, yes - it’s a male thing, not a party thing.  I don’t see equivalents to Trump, Roy Moore, Kavanaugh, etc. on the dem side though - guys that wanted to “plow through” the allegations.  

How would Bill Clinton look in 2018?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinny21

skinny21

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

6 minutes ago, bearrock said:

How would Bill Clinton look in 2018?  

My hunch is “bad” because of the power dynamic (though I have issues with the infidelity angle too).  On the ‘bright’ side, his situation didn’t exactly deal with sexual assault, bragging about it, rape, gang rape, or pedophelia.  

 

Edit: Or ‘trains’.  Can’t believe I just felt the need to type that... ugh.  

Edited by skinny21
Link to comment
Share on other sites
justice98

justice98

Posted
Posted
Just now, skinny21 said:

My hunch is “bad” because of the power dynamic (though I have issues with the infidelity angle too).  On the ‘bright’ side, his situation didn’t exactly deal with sexual assault, bragging about it, rape, gang rape, or pedophelia.  

 

He has at least 3 or 4 in that regard before he became president though.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedskinsFan44

RedskinsFan44

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, bearrock said:

How would Bill Clinton look in 2018?  

Didn't stop Trump. I think people shrugged off Flowers and to a lesser extent Lewinsky because they were consensual (though the power dynamic with Lewinsky makes that questionable), Broadrick (sp?) and Jones were viewed through party lenses much in the way Kavanaugh is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kilmer17

Kilmer17

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

 

My hunch is “bad” because of the power dynamic (though I have issues with the infidelity angle too).  On the ‘bright’ side, his situation didn’t exactly deal with sexual assault, bragging about it, rape, gang rape, or pedophelia.  

 

Edit: Or ‘trains’.  Can’t believe I just felt the need to type that... ugh.  

Multiple women accused Bill Clinton of rape.  They’ve been ignored. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hersh

Hersh

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, B&G said:

Question:  Do liberals believe in the presumption of innocence or just their "feelings"about whether someone is guilty of a crime or not?

 

Answer:  Read the posts made in this thread and all will be made clear.

 

Absolutely pathetic and shameful.


Look everyone, the winner showed up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kilmer17

Kilmer17

Posted
Posted

I do think it’s odd that we have a higher standard for Justices than we do for Presidents and presidential candidates. 

1 minute ago, visionary said:

No they haven't been ignored.  But I agree that Bill Clinton should not be on the Supreme Court.  

Dismissed is probably a better term than ignored.  The Dems certainly didn’t care about them. 

2 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

I mean honestly, Kennedy might be the one who would look the worst today.

Which one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
justice98

justice98

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, B&G said:

NoCal, the FBI has said they don't do investigations of this sort.  They do background checks and forward the results to the Senate.

The state of Maryland has declined to pursue the issue.

Who do Dems want to do the investigation?

 

Maybe CIA or NSA?

 

 

We shouldn't get bogged down in the background check vs investigation here.  For this purpose, they serve the same purpose.  There's an acronym in the FBI about background investigations called Carla F Bad:

Characters, Associates, Reputation, Loyalty, Ability, Finances, Bias, Alcohol and Drugs. 

 

The background check looking into those things could uncover some additional info, as some of those things are pertinent to the allegations. 

 

The real problem is the how much info they would get about the guy from 30+ years ago and finding people willing to give it.

Edited by justice98
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
visionary

visionary

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I do think it’s odd that we have a higher standard for Justices than we do for Presidents and presidential candidates. 

Dismissed is probably a better term than ignored.  The Dems certainly didn’t care about them. 

Which one?

I think we expect Presidents to lie, since they're still politicians, but judges are supposed to be more honest and theoretically above politics and able to rule on the merits of a case...maybe.

 

I don't know, I hated Bill Clinton when he was president and certainly don't like Trump.

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmm.  Not sure what to make of this.  I think we need more info.

Edited by visionary
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedskinsFan44

RedskinsFan44

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I do think it’s odd that we have a higher standard for Justices than we do for Presidents and presidential candidates. 

Dismissed is probably a better term than ignored.  The Dems certainly didn’t care about them. 

Which one?

Depends on what you believe about Marilyn.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoCalMike

NoCalMike

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Friday or Sat?   I’ve seen both.  And that’s just the Jud committee.  Still has to go to full senate 

 

The fact that they keep wanting to move it up seems to suggest they are just looking to go through the motions tomorrow and, they are afraid of more accusations/information being released the longer the confirmation is delayed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

Oh I should have been specific im not talking about anyone on ES I dont even remember what yall said in regards to Cosby i meant more twitter and junk TV personalities.  

Yeah no worries, was just adding to the conversation. ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

the problem with Barrett is that she is on record anti-Roe vs. Wade. Her law review articles and writings state that.

 

So what?

 

you gotta win elections if you want to control that. The gop is always going to put those people on the court. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...