I agree with that but doesn't that raise the question of sexism? Being hammered is a defense for women but not for men?
Kavanaugh and #me too
- Thread starter donnie_baseball
- Start date
I agree with that but doesn't that raise the question of sexism? Being hammered is a defense for women but not for men?
You're damn right I am. She had her chance to do what was right. She passed on it. You don't delay justice for convenience. She valued fitting in more that justice. That's her choice to live with. You get yourself passed out drunk, you are open to all kinds of crap like that. Hand in the bucket of hot water is the least of your troubles. The a reason the movie "Hangover"made money. Art imitates life.
I find your heroics intriguing. You now all of a sudden are espousing vigilante violence to administer justice. You are saying you would have (tried to) beat the shit out of someone based on one person's testimony. What is she were lying. What if she hated the dude.
Curious if she told you the guys name and you found out he could kick your ass. Wondering if you would still be filled with such bravado. It's so easy to be brave when you don't actually have to be brave.
Last edited:
There are no circumstances which would make it ok for a man to stick his dick in someones face if they don't want it there.
At present, we only know that is what she is saying now. 36 years later when doing so helps her political views.
I agree with 85, let's hear the whole story.
Last edited:
It's never Ok to stick your package in someone's face.
With that said there are also a bunch of stories going around that she was asking people in her class if it was him and that she was not totally sure. If there is an ounce of truth to those stories she has no credibility.
This whole thing is an smear campaign IMO. Politics at its worst. Delays, news keep hitting on the sexual assault angle and now this story that does not seem to be rooted in facts. Repubs screwed up and should have forced a vote last week after Ford hesitated. I will be surprised if Ford shows on Thursday - my prediction is another delay. I still think the nomination is dead but I think Kavanaugh wants to clear his name.
With that said there are also a bunch of stories going around that she was asking people in her class if it was him and that she was not totally sure. If there is an ounce of truth to those stories she has no credibility.
This whole thing is an smear campaign IMO. Politics at its worst. Delays, news keep hitting on the sexual assault angle and now this story that does not seem to be rooted in facts. Repubs screwed up and should have forced a vote last week after Ford hesitated. I will be surprised if Ford shows on Thursday - my prediction is another delay. I still think the nomination is dead but I think Kavanaugh wants to clear his name.
If she doesn’t show up Thursday, I will be in complete agreement with all of that.
GOP is afraid of the optics of questioning her so they got someone else to do it which gives democrats ammo to say republicans are playing politics and gives ford an out.
She still needs to show up to appear at all credible though.
That said, I don’t think pushing Kavanaugh through will play well in the midterms for the GOP, I also don’t think continuing delays ould be good for Democrats.
If I had to guess, I’d say she doesn’t show up and he will be confirmed shortly after while Democrats “protest” very vocally.
Not sure if anything else comes from the avenatti stuff, his claims are really out there so I hope it’s all fake.
Political is refusing to testify on a sexual assault claim because an expert sexual assault prosecutor will do the questioning instead of a bunch of grandstanding senators.
Continually moving the goalposts (and she's on her 3rd lawyer already, SMH???) of dictating how the hearings need to held is also a travesty.
If the subject matter wasn't so serious, it would be hysterical.
Continually moving the goalposts (and she's on her 3rd lawyer already, SMH???) of dictating how the hearings need to held is also a travesty.
If the subject matter wasn't so serious, it would be hysterical.
I guess all those men that were abused by priests have no business coming forward 30 or 40 years later. I don't think you have any clue what people go through whatsoever. The young priest who was forced to have sex with McCarrick 30 years ago should have just kept his trap shut. Hell, he had his time to do the right thing so screw him. Now he is just trying to ruin a Cardinal's life.
Wow...the false equivalency czar with the mother of all false equivilences. Beyond ridiculous.
Last edited:
I wouldn’t bet that he gets in Friday, that’s only the Committee vote. Full vote is Monday or Tuesday. I think he’ll get in then but you never know.
Really? What is the difference here? Ford was 15 when this allegedly happened. There were many of these abused boys were approximately the same age? Is the only difference that you believe the men and they have a right to come out with what happened to them years later and these women do not?
Let's not confuse this with a criminal trial. This is not a criminal trial and as someone posted, no attorney would bring charges in this case. However, this is about the Supreme Court. As someone who be the ultimate arbiter of the law in this land. Does this person 1) have the qualifications and 2) deserve to have this honor and privilege? These allegations call question to prong two.
I did not think his interview that he came off well at all. Repeating his mantra over and over again. Then stating that he was a virgin throughout his high school and college years was somehow a reason why he could not do these acts.
Again, until proven we are talking about an "if", a hypothetical.
That being said, a scenario of a drunken frat party at college with who knows what happened before, during, and after and by whom and how many is a bit different than a predator priest luring his victims over several years.
It is also a bit different with the priest wherein a kid had to go to school and if called to an office by a person of authority, had to go. Rameriz was not required to attend these parties and socialize with these people. She chose, without any force or coercion, for fours years, and then years after to continue to associate with them. I don't buy "ftting" in as the same as the authority a priest had over a kid in school.
Absurd question. First, both males and females were abused by the priests. Why are you focusing on the males? Second, when did I say I did not believer her? I find it completely believable that Kavanaugh waved his dick at her. I also find it completely believable that she is lying through her teeth and using the shield of inebriation to explain her lie.
I will stand by my conviction that her coming out now is a crock of shit. Take a hard think on this one. You go to a drunken wild party at a frat. You are drinking until you just about pass out. Others around you are equally drunk. At some point you have a dick waved in your face. You slap it way. You wake up with hangover with a vague recollection of previou s night. Your girlfriend asks, "Do you remember when you slapped so and so's dick". "Oh yeah, I kinda remember that. That was gross. What else did I do? My head really hurts". etc.
40 years later you are a staunch liberal and Kavanaugh is up for SCOTUS. Your email your friends and ask them if Kavanaugh was at the party and could he have been the guy whose dick I slapped away. They say it might have been. You figure this is your chance to make a stand for Roe V. Wade. Plus the book deal. Great way to pad the retirement. Never mind if you were blind drunk and might have the wrong guy. Tough shit for his wife and daughters. You're not going to let a conservative judge take down Roe V. Wade. You testify in court that Kavanaugh waved his dick and you slapped it. Even if someone could produce a video tape showing it was someone else, you simply reply, "well I was really drunk. I truly thought it was him. Truly." Nomination delayed. Damage done. You win in the fight for Roe V. Wade. Take your seat in the annals of liberal activism.
You said previously that I have no clue as to what people go through. You have no clue what I know or have experienced in these matters. I will tell you that bullshit like hers hurts the people who have truly suffered. If you can keep a straight face and tell me you buy her story that she was traumatized by this (alleged) event, than I commend for your acting ability. Give me a real victim and I will show them compassion. Ford is not seeking justice, or closure, or healing.
She is seeking to uphold liberal causes at the expense of a highly qualified and respected judge, his wife, and two daughters.
Sad thing is she has probably been ginned up into believing what she is doing is right and just.
Last edited:
You're changing the facts of what happened to fit your narrative though.
She did not start this process.
Yale graduates were e-mailing about these allegations back in July wondering if it would come out or not. Ramirez was contacted by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer because of those e-mails. This wasn't someone looking to make a stand.
If they had come out when he was about to be elevated to Cardinal, your analogy would be more apt. Agree with what was said before -- if Kavanaugh was a known liberal justice, they would have kept their "traps" shut.
At the end of the day, what the testimonies come down to tomorrow, is how it will effect the possible swing votes (Collins, Flake and Murkowski). No one cares about anything else. And I actually think Ford's testimony will have little impact. Really about how convincing Kavanagh is in his denial and how he can balance the anger of being smeared along with compassion for a victim.
Like my wife, you have corrected a fact that does nothing to change the essence of the point.
So yes, as far as we know she did not initiate. My quickly written scenario has been corrected.
Will you agree that she willingly agreed to come forward after being contacted. Would you agree that her motivations are political and have nothing to do with her healing and so called trauma.
Like Donnie said, if it were a liberal judge, we would have never heard from her. She would have healed just fined and the trauma of her hangover would be non-existent.
Maybe she was convinced she had to come forward because it would provide support for a pattern of behavior to help another woman (Ford) who may have been treated inappropriately? Maybe she felt that if she spoke up it would encourage others to do so as well if they had a similar experience? It doesn't have to be about healing to be valid.
I'm not willing to sign onto that. The meetoo movement is a relatively new phenomena. I don't think one side will be protected from it.
Then of course there is Avenatti’s new client who has signed a sworn declaration.
As a clearance holder, lying on a sworn statement would end her career as well as carry additional criminal liability.
Not sure what to make of that one yet. Seems like it would be crazy to lie on a sworn statement, but I am not sure if you can prove she lied as much as you can prove if she is telling the truth.
Quite a crazy claim though.
As a clearance holder, lying on a sworn statement would end her career as well as carry additional criminal liability.
Not sure what to make of that one yet. Seems like it would be crazy to lie on a sworn statement, but I am not sure if you can prove she lied as much as you can prove if she is telling the truth.
Quite a crazy claim though.
So in the matter of weeks, he went from a respected federal judge with an impeccable record, whether or not you share his beliefs, court judgement or felt he should be confirmed, to based on this new accuser a serial rapist who is drugging young women. Sorry too much of a stretch for me.
I tend to agree. I'm not 100% sure but it seems like too much of a stretch for me as well (especially with her including "beach week" right after Kavenaugh's calendar comes out. That felt a little made up.
While the first and 2nd accusations seemed possible in my opinion, this 3rd that he is part of a group of high school guys that was drugging and gang raping multiple women is just is too outrageous, even with the stigma rape survivors have to deal with you have to expect this would have come out long ago by one of the multiple women against one of the alleged gang.
Did I hear this correctly? Her claim is that he was in the house, but doesn’t know if he participated?
As we await the circus to begin at 10 AM, let’s all remember it was only a few short weeks ago at John McCain‘s funeral that politicians from both sides, the idiots in the MSM and even posters on this board were hailing it as a seminal learning moment for our nation to work together in a bipartisan manner. How has that worked out?
Agree, and Al Franken learned that the hard way. HOWEVER, Kavanaugh will give the Supreme Court a decided conservative edge. Many on the left, particularly feminists, fear that this may somehow result in them losing "rights."
I agree with that, but conversely - Had Hillary been elected and about to replace Kennedy with a more liberal there are people on the right who would believe it would lead to abortion services at 7/11 and a complete gun confiscation. Some GOP senators were even floating the idea that 8 is enough if Hillary ended up winning to prevent a change in the makeup of the court.
I'm just saying - If there is a situation similar to the one with Ramirez (Yale alum e-mailing about the alleged incident without her coming forward) with a judge nominated by a democrat, you can bet your ass the GOP staffers and journalists will be there begging them to come forward and will be hunting for similar stories from other classmates.We can't pretend that one side is more likely to do that. They would both do it especially since the dawn of metoo.
Analysis of her testimony that I have seen has been partisan, cutting both ways.
Clearly the purpose of these hearings is not to get at the truth. It is a political process.
Clearly the purpose of these hearings is not to get at the truth. It is a political process.
They aren’t convicting him of anything. They just need to consider if her testimony is credible. There is nothing he can say that will undo her testimony.
He was already polling horribly. If he were a more popular nominee, maybe they can argue public support but confirming him after that will be really, really bad politically.
This is not going well for him at all. I would not vote to confirm him. Too much smoke. Would he be proven guilty in a court of law? Far different story.
This line from his statement today is particularly bad for a judge, who is supposed to be impartial. It shows he is partisan.
This line from his statement today is particularly bad for a judge, who is supposed to be impartial. It shows he is partisan.
- Kavanaugh continued, saying the allegations were fueled by "apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."
That is a stupid statement to make but it has worked for some before
::: cough, cough Clintons, cough, cough ::::, with the same senators).Sounds like both Kavanagh and Ford came off as very credible. Republicans did a good job framing the politization of this. Finestein looked like an idiot at the end.
One more thought on Finestein. At the end of the hearing she claimed that she kept the letter in confidence because that’s what Ford wanted. And the only reason she raised the issue at the 11th hour was because the contents of the letter leaked and breached Fords confidentiality. So by that line of thinking, if the information was never leaked she would’ve sat on the confidential letter. Does that mean she would’ve allowed the hearings to go on and possibly allowed the confirmation of a supreme court judge without ever mentioning such a bombshell?
Feinstein is a liar and did not like being questioned at the end. She was exposed and I s the villain in all this. She has single handedly solidified the Repub base on this issue IMO.
Flake will vote yes IMO. Not sure about Murkowski and Collins.
Flake will vote yes IMO. Not sure about Murkowski and Collins.
Similar threads
