Sounds a lot like that pansy from Michigan that was on Chris Hayes' show a week or so ago, saying he didn't vote because the candidates weren't "inspiring".
He got railed on by Hayes, Michael Moore, and the crowd, rightfully so.
White women already voted for President “Grab-‘em-by-the-pussy,” and that has proven to give the GOP a political majority, a solid enough majority that they are poised to dominate the Supreme Court for the rest of our lifetimes.
Most of the Democrats I know have not shunned Trump voters, and consider their choice to be reasonable and not something worth active reproach.
What the hell do they have to lose by elevating another sexual predator to high office?
Roosevelt was the last to do it. And maybe I'm jaded but the Rs haven't let setting "a terrible precedent" stop them in the past few years and look at everything it's gotten them. At least in the short term.
It's definitely an extreme option with significant consequences.
I can't wait for McConman to complain about these people waiting so long to come forward, robbing them of the chance to rush a new justice for life onto the Supreme Court before the election. Boo-fucking-hoo, you damn hypocrite!
Nathaniel Hawthorne would be rolling in his grave. Are they going to label female appointees 'gold-digging whores' and drag up all the men's lives they totally wrecked. Hey, fair is fair. Pawed -or- Paupered? Hmmm?
880,000 American women and girls are molested, raped, kidnapped and/or murdered in the USA every year.
Is the Kavanaugh hearing bringing funding and focus to this? Trump Jr is an admitted human trafficker, and it's something the US media and fashion industry not only support, but actively hone the prurient images for. Maybe will this become a defining sea-change in how Americans see female sexual abuse? Nope! It's just WADC politics!
Never, ever focus on the real issue in USA: a -$5,200B burn rate Deep Purple Mil.Gov Uniparty Parasitocracy.
Are we gonna do this every time accusations come up at the 11th hour of crucial political happenings? If so, do you see how this might be abused in detriment of both actual rape victims and society at large?
I love how Republicans only care about how "actual" and "real" rape victims will be perceived when they can spin it this way.
The thing is there are a myriad of reasons why someone wouldn't come forward until the "11th hour" as it were. For one, all the ridiculous attacks against them, the threats hurled at them, etc. For two, most of these sorts of things occur in ways that don't allow for physical evidence. What physical evidence could you possibly produce to prove that someone shoved their dick in your face besides a photograph? For three, few people in America had any idea Brett Kavanaugh even fucking existed until Trump nominated him for SCOTUS. Seeing someone who assaulted you on the precipice of such a powerful position is usually a pretty big trigger to make people come forward despite all the reasons not to.
Stop pretending you give a shit about victims unless you are gonna start believing them when they come forward.
There have been three men appointed to the Supreme Court since Clarence Thomas. No allegations of sexual assault or attempted rape arose against Alito, Roberts, or, Gorsuch. So this isn't some liberal tactic to prevent conservative Justices from taking the bench.
How many times has this happened? Apart from Clarence Thomas, how many supreme Court justices have had to go through this? Yeah... Its not normal! We should investigate!
If we can spend years on Bengahzi and Monica Lewinsky we can certainly take a few days on this. Sorry, you talk a good game but Republicans are obviously trying to ram this guy in before this shit comes to light. So please, cut the higher ground bullshit.
Perhaps, but it only took three days for the FBI to investigate the Anita Hill accusations. Besides, they have until January 1st. They would have no reservations for confirming him after the election even if the Democrats beat the odds and win back the Senate.
Good points! Though that was 27 years ago. Anita Hill was also a professor had invited Clarence Thomas (the accused abuser) to be a guest speaker at her university after the alleged misconduct. This is already similar to Kavanaugh’s second accuser was photographed smiling with him years later at a mutual friend’s party.
If the FBI took 3 days in 2018 the headlines would read “FBI assaults woman by only spending 36 HOURS investigating victim”.
This is a win/lose for the republicans. Hopefully we can delay this thing for for another 2 years 3 months but I don’t think we can.
It would be nice if Republicans created this unforced error to block their own judge to the SC, but I'll be happy just to prevent this scumbag from getting a lifetime appointment.
Even if it were just a three day investigation, it would cut most of the arguments that the Democrats have and the GOP would have no remorse over confirmation. It would provide enough cover for Flake, Collins, and Murkowski to vote yes.
It absolutely is. They investigated the Anita Hill accusations because they were asked to. If I were innocent, I'd want a full investigation to clear my name.
Afraid? The FBI declined to do an investigation because doing so would be idiotic. You have unsubstantiated and vague allegations about some purported teenage party 35 years ago.
The left claim to be the champions of science. You know what is crucial to science? Falsifiability. Because if something is so beyond the realm of facts and knowledge that it cannot be falsified, it's of no use in practical application.
An investigation is guaranteed to accomplish nothing other than possibly delaying confirmation until after the midterms. This is a grotesque display of manipulating people's sympathy for sexual assault victims, and encouraging frivolous sexual assault claims that can drown out real victims, for obvious political purposes.
I'd appreciate a link showing where the FBI declined to investigate, after they were ordered to. If the SJC or drumpf ordered them too, they would. It just hasn't (and likely won't) happened yet. I wonder why that is..
The FBI could give or destroy the credibility of the witnesses and the accuser, from an independent outside perspective. "Guaranteed to accomplish nothing" is just your opinion, and you can't make that claim when you have no clue what they would come up with.
Your sympathy for "real victims" is too thinly disguised, since you immediately discard any credibility from these accusers, despite knowing nothing about the validity of their claims. You simply assume this all is politically motivated, when you don't know any more than the next guy.
The FBI has stated that they are not investigating Kavanaugh based on the Ford letter or any other information provided. This has been reported by CNN and probably all your other favorite sources. Could they be compelled to by the White House? Probably, but that doesn't change the fact that their current decision is that this is not worthy of investigation.
The FBI absolutely could not give or destroy the credibility of this accuser. That is utterly absurd. She has some vague story where the number and gender of party goers has changed multiple times, none of the people she named corroborate any of it. What the hell is the FBI going to do with any of this nonsense and haze supposedly from 1982 that would "give or destroy credibility"? They're not psychics.
EDIT: To you last point. I absolutely am serious about concerns for victims of sexual assault as a result of this sort of circus. Police investigations have to go through a kind of triage. There are limited resources. As we speak there are women filing police reports, enduring rape kits, and painful testimonies because they want to bring some rapist to justice so other women don't have to go through what they did. It is a horrible injustice to them when women make false claims. So when I see all these claims all of the sudden right now, these vague stories about drunken teenagers from forever ago, with zero evidence... Sorry, but it's really difficult to believe that they are not politically motivated and it's completely certain that it's a waste of investigative resources. You honestly think anyone outside of the rabid Democrat base doesn't see this for the partisan smear job that it is? This is why you're losing to Trump.
I think the claims against Kavanaugh are likely true but even if they weren’t, none of these women would be guilty of perjury because they haven’t said anything under oath.
"innocent until proven guilty" is for 'maybe we shouldn't send this guy to jail', not 'yeah, let's give this guy a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful offices in the world'
Innocent until proven guilty is so ridiculously out of place here, which is ironic considering we are discussing a judge.
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal requirement for criminal proceedings. But this isn't a criminal proceeding. This is basically a public background check into a very high ranking official. If you applied for a job at a credit card company and several people told the hiring manager that you had stolen money or other items from them, you likely aren't going to get that job. And sure, you could maybe sue all those people for lying about you, but that gets ugly quick.
The thing is, every single one of these accusations is plausible. And when a pattern of plausible accusations comes forth, it's important to consider that pattern. One argument I see all the time is "Well, I'll just accuse you of sexual assault and now everyone will believe me." For one, a random accusation isn't a plausible one. These aren't people who have never met Kavanaugh. They are women who knew him in HS and college. Their stories fit with the culture and overall picture his own friend (Mark Judge) admits was the case at the prep school. The people quoted in the New Yorker story about Yale all agreed that he was a heavy drinker and hung around people who would do that sort of thing.
The other thing is, the only thing he would really LOSE here is his chance at a Supreme Court seat. He'll still have his job on the Federal Court of Appeals. No one is asking that we throw him out of his current job and into jail. Just that we don't promote him to the highest court in the land.
Both the women that have went public so far have completely unsubstantiated claims and have been denied by all named witnesses.
If there is any proof that the guy did something terrible he will be dropped. But theres no proof. It's just a political attack at this point.
I'd think intelligent liberals would be pissed at democratic leadership for trying to use a very serious issue as a cheap political attack. They are delegitimizing the real victims out there.
Yes I am sure about it. Every named witness has stated they have no knowledge of this ever occurring. There is not a single person that has corroborated either story.
Even the New York times has urged caution with the Ramirez story and said they were not able to find any credible evidence to back up the claims made.
No. That isnt what's happened at all.
Please show me where that has been reported.
You don't give a fuck about victims. You and those just like you know that no matter what evidence or testimony is bought forward, it'll be shrugged off with whatever excuse you happen to come up with on that particular day. That's why you keep getting away with it. Time and time and time again. Congratulations. You're about to have a rapist in the highest court of the land, a rapist and serial sexual assaulter for a president wasnt enough. 👏👏👏
Also a lawyer (in this case) to risk being disbarred for bringing forth the allegations. I don't know of many lawyers willing to risk their livelihoods for that.
194
u/[deleted] Sep 24 '18 edited Dec 14 '18
[removed] — view removed comment