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

[TheDoyler23]

1 minute ago, Cooked Crack said:

An Obama appointee would have been pulled already.

 

Or Obama wouldn't have appointed such a person. Aren't these people investigated thoroughly BEFORE the nomination? The weird financial stuff didn't come out in the vetting?

 

ugh. 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

13 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

Next speech. We taking this nomination to completion.

[The Evil Genius]

Attacking victims for how they should have behaved (pre and post incident) never ends well.

 

It's also boorish.

Edited September 21, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

This goes back to that "Yes, All Women" thread from maybe last year.

 

But I think the fundamental problem with male GOP politicians is that they are starting from a belief that very very few women are ever in a position where they feel threatened by a male. And a belief that anyone who was assaulted would obviously report it to the police.

 

The entire point of the MeToo movement is to encourage others to tell their stories - to let them know they are not alone.

 

That's why something like the Asia Argento fiasco doesn't really hurt the overall movement. Or undercut her specific story. It just proves that victims can be victimizers as well.

 

I just don't know how any woman who has experienced or been witness to sexual violence can see this sort of thing and not punish the GOP.

 

 

[twa]

7 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Attacking victims for how they should have behaved (pre and post incident) never ends well.

 

It's also boorish.

 

What if the victim is Kav?

 

 

[NoCalMike]

The "why didn't she..." narrative is sad. The fact that it is still being perpetuated, after have had hundreds of people come forward to explain why they didn't come forward for years, if ever means these men simply don't care at all, or are just refusing to drop their preconceived notions.  

 

These kinds of matters have their way of bringing out the disgusting side of men.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

7 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

The "why didn't she..." narrative is sad. The fact that it is still being perpetuated, after have had hundreds of people come forward to explain why they didn't come forward for years, if ever means these men simply don't care at all, or are just refusing to drop their preconceived notions.  

 

These kinds of matters have their way of bringing out the disgusting side of men.

 

There is nothing like Free Republic to show you the racist geriatric base of the GOP.

 

There is a thread there were the pressing question is, "Why was she at a party with 6 boys anyway?"

 

The argument is basically, "She's lying, but if she isn't lying, it's her own fault."

[Cooked Crack]

 

[NoCalMike]

1 minute ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

There is nothing like Free Republic to show you the racist geriatric base of the GOP.

 

There is a thread there were the pressing question is, "Why was she at a party with 6 boys anyway?"

 

The argument is basically, "She's lying, but if she isn't lying, it's her own fault."

 

 

Oh don't forget the lady in the CNN clip with the "What boy didn't do this in High School, huh?" zinger.  FFS.

[RedskinsFan44]

23 minutes ago, twa said:

 

What if the victim is Kav?

 

 

He should be wishing he had more competent defenders than Trump and Whelan.

[LadySkinsFan]

2 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

3- I think Ford's inability to know the time and place this occurred is problematic.  Meaning how can she be certain it was BK if she cant be certain of the rest of it.

4- I'd like every person who has put themselves in the middle of this to testify under oath.

I

Believe me, if someone is forcing themselves on you that you don't want, you definitely remember that person. 

 

And definitely all involved need to testify under oath.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

9 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

 

Oh don't forget the lady in the CNN clip with the "What boy didn't do this in High School, huh?" zinger.  FFS.

 

We're basically living that through Amy Schumer sketch "Football Town Nights."

 

Clear eyes, full hearts, no raping.

[RedskinsFan44]

thread that makes a pretty good case Ks "I don't remember the party" line may be bogus

https://mobile.twitter.com/brianbeutler/status/1043160675441418240

 

[Jumbo]

 

so the gopers have made a counter offer--details coming out

 

as typcial, in the last 36 hours in the thread there's some missing validated relevant data out there, and some likely deliberate (and most not) misrepresentations of what already has been said/happened, but it's not all bad in here and given the subject and the times and the partisanship on "both sides" here, that's pretty cool  

 

there were a couple posts in particular that inspired me to make bacon for breakfast, though. 

 

one of many of the more obvious examples of bias scurrying to find a comfy blanket  is the "how can she not know/remember where the party was?"

 

i went to enough parties during those years that i know there were a few that i wouldn't  be able to tell you where they were or whose house it was. but cuz i didn't drive or didn't care enough to remember if it wasn't someone i knew that well or didn't see a lot. how hard is that to identify with?

 

and i even experienced a couple 'traumatic events" too for that matter--violent ones---we just didn't call them that, or understand it that way, but that's what they were and they had impact regardless of our ignorance. but even with the one occurrence that directly involved me i couldn't tell you, beyond a very general area, how to get there or whose place it was.

 

 

 

and again---folks who do should stop saying "36 years ago" like you're making any intelligent point in the context it's being used---it's irrelevant per that context. btw, how many people who have been playing that card had zero difficulty accepting young males coming out after similar or greater lengths of time and accusing clergy of sexual assault? and think of all the support/testimonials even those clergy found guilty got from their biased/invested institutional (political) army and "community leaders"---i.e. community politics.

 

we should all keep our mirrors close by these days.

 

so seeing someone even use some of those things as an argument to question her credibility even once, suggests to me there's little effort to think critically, and there are several other popular tropes (real event/mistaken id by ford) of that same lack of even modest intellectual merit coming from those invested in the kav kamp.

 

i have been involved with many sexual assault cases over the years, professionally, and somewhere around 20-plus where the event is reported long after its occurrence---usually involving participation with local or state law---and a couple times fed----and i see it through that lens as well as a social policy and political-environment one.

 

ford's info so far would be considered quite in line with what's common enough in such cases---and more insight/info is accruing, if too slowly.

 

nothing, i repeat nothing, out there in the media to date, inc. every talking point about timing and memory would do anything to "DQ" her in the slightest. nor would the info to date be considered proof of kav's guilt obviously. but the claim would--is---regarded as quite credible by pros ime.

 

i think it's important to take part of your brain---if possible---de-emphasize the politics, and just see the sexual assault allegation and all the dynamics that entails for all parties outside that political realm. 

 

from that viewpoint, it's discouraging to see how little progress has been made in how this case is being treated and how far we have left to go. ford actually is getting even less regard and accommodation than hill was accorded, pre-hearing anyway. this could have been much better handled by the gop and without their precious time table being seriously impacted and they are increasingly looking very very ugly (not saying dems look that attractive, either). 

 

and i still have no definite stand on this matter (other than a majority of gopers--males especially--seem to lean heavily toward the pig/vermin setting in my eye these days on many issues, inc. this one) as to guilty or innocent. that would be dumb.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

 

All he has to do is say "I didn't assault her".

 

thats not how this works. 

[twa]

 

Do you think that Hill reported hers earlier was a factor there?

 

[Dan T.]

5 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I think Vis meant that asking is not the same thing as demanding, not that she didn't request it at all.

 

Exactly.  Just like Brent Kavanaugh asked Christine Blasey Ford if he could rip off her clothes and have sex with her, not demand it.

[RedskinsFan44]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

thats not how this works. 

You left off "and came off as credible". If he didn't do it that's all he can do. Spinning stories about dopplegangers, making claims of "all boys do that", and saying "if it happened she would have reported it" only makes it look suspicious. I guess you could have Judge come in and testify, but if K doesn't know what party it was neither should Judge.

[tshile]

52 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

The argument is basically, "She's lying, but if she isn't lying, it's her own fault."

You can find that general rational across political discussions a lot 

 

“... the allegation isn’t true, but if it is <excuse/deflect/point at something that should cause more outrage>”

2 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

You left off "and came off as credible". If he didn't do it that's all he can do. Spinning stories about dopplegangers, making claims of "all boys do that", and saying "if it happened she would have reported it" only makes it look suspicious. I guess you could have Judge come in and testify, but if K doesn't know what party it was neither should Judge.

It won’t be credible to any of the people who are being critical of him. They will not believe him. Unless he presents irrefutable evidence he wasn’t even there (at this place we don’t know of, during this time we don’t know of) none of the majority of this thread will believe him. They will have an excuse for not believing him. 

 

Thats what i mean. It doesn’t work the way you’re pretending it does. He needs absolute proof he didn’t do it and even then a sizable portion of the people in this thread will refuse to believe or “yeah but” it. 

Edited September 21, 2018 by tshile

[RedskinsFan44]

He has the votes, he has to do well enough not to lose them.

 

Add: The people in this forum really have no weight in the matter. McConnell will push him through if he doesn't take on more water. But politically I think he is taking on water, and there are probably a lot of Senators who would like to punt on this. It is kind of like Trump's ceaseless "no collusion". You expect that kind of nonsense from the internet, but people in positions of power should have the intelligence to realize that being quiet can best strategy if you are innocent.

Edited September 21, 2018 by RedskinsFan44

[Dan T.]

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

I will also say that I think in this case, a natural response is maybe she's confused over the person.  Rather than call her an out and out lair, especially given her lack of details, maybe she just mixed up who did it is probably a pretty natural response. 

 

Blasey Ford has stated that she knew socially both Brett Kavanaugh and the classmate falsely accused as the real attacker by conservative activist Ed Whelan, and that there was "zero chance" she would have confused them.

[Jumbo]

trump finally trumpeting should add to the fun now, and the gop's counter-offer falls short of fair or decent imv but is still better than i might have expect from them---that's not praise

 

if the gop were to hold firm as they sit now, i'd advise ford to consider simply doing a tour of well-chosen media platforms to tell her story and her take on this process and answer the better tv interviews as an alternative

 

7 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Do you think that Hill reported hers earlier was a factor there?

 

 

 

i guess you're talking to me? you should select your compatriots with more care. 

 

no. not at all. frankly i don't think it's takes much effort to see they could have done something quite similar in accommodations--which was still insufficient---with the time at hand, and all as I've said before, without threatening their schedule in any meaningful way.

 

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

He has the votes, he has to do well enough not to lose them.

 

Im referring to how one would salvage their reputation in a case like this (an accusation with no evidence either way)

 

when we we talk about any other type of case/issue else majority of you would ridicule anyone for assuming guilt. 

 

 

[twa]

Jumbo

They have done something similar,except the reopening the FBI investigation Hill's complaint had initiated earlier.....kind of hard to open any kind of one in advance w/o any cooperation.