US politics general thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
NarrowBandFtw said:
Of course, something you've buried for 30 years and cannot even recall in much detail is suddenly going to awaken your conscience just in time to fek with a nominee of the opposition.
Click to expand...

She neither buried it, nor is hazy with the details. She described it 6 years ago, and took legal action before Kav became a nominee. None of the points you're trying to make are valid.
 
cerebus said:
Do you think she lied to her therapist in 2012?
Click to expand...
Do you think that is in any way valid evidence. There is B.S about Ford taking a polygraph test to confirm her allegations, a test which results are not admissible in any court due to their reliability.

cerebus said:
Well no **** sherlock, it's not a coincidence. She stated that she did not come forward with the allegations until it was clear that he was on track to becoming nominated as a Supreme Court justice. It's entirely reasonable that a sexual assault victim would choose not to upend their lives and subject themselves to intense scrutiny and the kind of detestable mud-slinging that you engaged in here. I'd also want to put the past behind me and forget about it.
Click to expand...

1)It is perfectly ok to not come forward when he was being confirmed in the appeal court, but the line is drawn for the supreme court. It doesn't seem right to me that a sexual assault victim would ignore the crime based on the status of the person they are accusing. Brett was a public figure long before his nomination.
https://www.congress.gov/nomination/108th-congress/840


2) The person who this woman named as a witness to the shenanigans has denied.It.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...k-judge-brett-kavanaugh-friend-christine-ford

3) Feinstein only bought the issue to light after the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing. The party of protecting women's rights is using the alleged assault of a person to further their political goals.
 
konfab said:
Do you think that is in any way valid evidence. There is B.S about Ford taking a polygraph test to confirm her allegations, a test which results are not admissible in any court due to their reliability.
Click to expand...

I don't consider it to be valid evidence. It does rather demolish the idea that she's suddenly manufacturing these claims out of whole cloth, purely because Kavanaugh is now in line to the supreme court.

1)It is perfectly ok to not come forward when he was being confirmed in the appeal court, but the line is drawn for the supreme court. It doesn't seem right to me that a sexual assault victim would ignore the crime based on the status of the person they are accusing. Brett was a public figure long before his nomination.
https://www.congress.gov/nomination/108th-congress/840
Click to expand...

What are you saying? What line is drawn?

2) The person who this woman named as a witness to the shenanigans has denied.It.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...k-judge-brett-kavanaugh-friend-christine-ford
Click to expand...

According to his own account, he spent the better part of his college years in a state of toxic inebriation. Plus there's the whole 'accomplice to attempted rape' thing. His denial is utterly meaningless.

3) Feinstein only bought the issue to light after the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing. The party of protecting women's rights is using the alleged assault of a person to further their political goals.
Click to expand...

Yes Feinstein is terrible.
 
cerebus said:
I don't consider it to be valid evidence. It does rather demolish the idea that she's suddenly manufacturing these claims out of whole cloth, purely because Kavanaugh is now in line to the supreme court.
Click to expand...
Brett Kavanaugh was a public figure long before the nomination.
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/us/bush-aide-on-court-nominees-faces-fire-as-nominee-himself.html
Of course last time around, using accusations of sexual assault was not considered an ethical tactic. Why would a member of the Democrat party not report this in 2004 to the very same people?

cerebus said:
What are you saying? What line is drawn?
Click to expand...
Allowing him to become an appeals court judge is fine, but the line is drawn at a supreme court.
 
konfab said:
Brett Kavanaugh was a public figure long before the nomination.
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/us/bush-aide-on-court-nominees-faces-fire-as-nominee-himself.html
Of course last time around, using accusations of sexual assault was not considered an ethical tactic. Why would a member of the Democrat party not report this in 2004 to the very same people?

Allowing him to become an appeals court judge is fine, but the line is drawn at a supreme court.
Click to expand...

I think it all depends on how far you're willing to let someone rise to power before deciding it's worthwhile to sacrifice your own privacy and subject yourself to public accusation. So yes, while he was an appeals judge she probably felt it wasn't worthwhile to come forward. No doubt she was motivated by the possibility of him becoming a supreme court judge. I'm not sure what difference that makes to her credibility?
 
cerebus said:
I think it all depends on how far you're willing to let someone rise to power before deciding it's worthwhile to sacrifice your own privacy and subject yourself to public accusation.
Click to expand...
If only there was a government service that allowed people to lay criminal charges of this nature against people and have their identity protected...
Victims of rape and sexual assault can remain anonymous to the public. In 1994, the Violence Against Women Act created a federal rape shield law that not only protects the identity of victims, but also the victim’s prior and subsequent sexual history and conduct from being introduced as evidence in court.
Click to expand...
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/crime-victim-anonymity.html
It must be the patriarchy that prevented her from going to a police station in 1995 and laying a charge of sexual assault.

cerebus said:
I'm not sure what difference that makes to her credibility?
Click to expand...
It basically means she didn't give a toss about it until it was politically acceptable to do it, despite the existence of laws that would protect her.
 
buka001 said:
I love this.

Why would she keep quiet about it for 30 years?

Everyone attacking her ...

Yeah absolutely no idea why she kept it quiet ...
Click to expand...

We had exactly the same conversations when Trump was being accused of sexual assault. Just as nothing came of it then, I'm quite cynical about anything coming of this either. The only real potential problem for Kavanaugh is that he strenuously denied all the allegations, and her credibility means that he probably lied. It's likely to be much more problematic than some rapey 'hijinks' he got up to at college. Boys will be boys. And presidents. And supreme court judges.
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
Of course, something you've buried for 30 years and cannot even recall in much detail is suddenly going to awaken your conscience just in time to fek with a nominee of the opposition.

Hell I wish I was a member of the democrat party, their sheep sure are easy to convince, I'd be a god :D
Click to expand...
Yip I find it strange that in American politics any horny bitch from the distant past can suddenly emerge prior to elections to eliminate the candidates. She claimed they were drunk. Wonder what condition she was in, not refering to being horny.
 
cerebus said:
She neither buried it, nor is hazy with the details. She described it 6 years ago, and took legal action before Kav became a nominee. None of the points you're trying to make are valid.
Click to expand...
Took action 6 years ago? When did it happen again?
 
cerebus said:
She described it to her therapist in 2012 in couples counseling. She took legal action in June.
Click to expand...
From the 80's. Convenient indeed. No possibility that she was a cockteaser then and now wants to limit the opposition with her claims. Hope his accomplice friend is still alive. Why not lay charges against him?
 
Seriously said:
From the 80's. Convenient indeed. No possibility that she was a cockteaser then and now wants to limit the opposition with her claims. Hope his accomplice friend is still alive. Why not lay charges against him?
Click to expand...

Why, oh why, wouldn't she come forward with her charges earlier so she could get called a cockteasing liar? It just doesn't make any sense.
 
Seriously said:
From the 80's. Convenient indeed. No possibility that she was a cockteaser then and now wants to limit the opposition with her claims. Hope his accomplice friend is still alive. Why not lay charges against him?
Click to expand...
Sounds exactly like the sort of BS people came up with to explain away accusations against Bill Cosby....how did that one go again?
 
cerebus said:
Why, oh why, wouldn't she come forward with her charges earlier so she could get called a cockteasing liar? It just doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

You left out “bitch” from his previous post but he’s obviously a feminist so I think we can let it slide this one time...
 
Seriously said:
From the 80's. Convenient indeed. No possibility that she was a cockteaser then and now wants to limit the opposition with her claims. Hope his accomplice friend is still alive. Why not lay charges against him?
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean his friend who scrubbed his YouTube, Vimeo, Facebook and Twitter accounts on Sunday night? The one that wrote about being drunk throughout the 80s?

Yea, he’s still around and you won’t believe it but *Democrats* have a few questions for him too.
 
greg0205 said:
Oh, you mean his friend who scrubbed his YouTube, Vimeo, Facebook and Twitter accounts on Sunday night? The one that wrote about being drunk throughout the 80s?

Yea, he’s still around and you won’t believe it but *Democrats* have a few questions for him too.
Click to expand...

He's obviously got way more credibility than the testimony of Kristine Blasey Ford.
 
cerebus said:
He's obviously got way more credibility than the testimony of Kristine Blasey Ford.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

There was a reply to a twitter post regarding Mark Judge’s now scrubbed YouTube channel which I wanted to post here but I can’t find, so I’ll have to paraphrase...

65 women who say they knew Mark Judge in high school have signed a letter stating they’re *still* in high school.
 
Seriously said:
Yip I find it strange that in American politics any horny bitch from the distant past can suddenly emerge prior to elections to eliminate the candidates. She claimed they were drunk. Wonder what condition she was in, not refering to being horny.
Click to expand...

I think you are onto something.

Was it the way she dressed at the party?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X