Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

thelawlorfaithful

The Kavanaughcalypse!

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, mugtang said:

I do think these new allegations will derail Kavanaugh’s nomination.  Based on the new evidence it appears he may have sexually assaulted a woman in high school.  Now, I don’t know if the actions of a drunk individual when he was 17 should derail his confirmation.  What do you guys think?

If he is guilty, yes, no question. We shouldn’t have an attempted rapist on the Supreme Court regardless of the age when he committed the crime. The boys will be boys defense is an awfully low bar for someone seeking a lifetime appointment on the country’s most important court.

Determining guilt is another matter, and I doubt there will be enough evidence To convince most beyond their own partisan beliefs on the nominee himself. Just what this country needs, a partisan fight over a he said, she said allegation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, mugtang said:

I stopped reading when she blamed men for 100% of unwanted pregnancies in her second tweet:

 

"But ALL unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsible ejaculations of men."

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, wolfpack1 said:

In today's environment probably since it has gone to guilty until proven innocent situation with many of these accusations. And also I would be concerned that if Feinstein really did know this alleged attack happened and held onto it until after the hearings were over. I would be extremely concerned with that. 

I am also concerned with people talking about a credible allegation when it i nothing near that sort of thing. Just because you make an accusation it doesn't make it credible. 

Personally I don't think it derails things and with Feinstein involved possibly knowing this the whole time bringing it to no one's attention until hearings are over, this smells like dirty politics as usual from Feinstein.

I disagree about Feinstein. I realize that at least half the people on here would deny her any credit ever, but I believe when she says she intentionally waited until after the hearings so that the hearing wouldn’t be all about the allegations as was the case with Thomas. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard this morning on the radio that the allegations stem from a marriage counseling session where the psychologist determined that she had repressed memories from 30 years ago. Not sure if anything can be definitively proven if that's the case. I could be completely wrong though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NMpackalum said:

I heard this morning on the radio that the allegations stem from a marriage counseling session where the psychologist determined that she had repressed memories from 30 years ago. Not sure if anything can be definitively proven if that's the case. I could be completely wrong though.

See and those are dicey situations.  There have been several cases where a persons subconscious essentially makes up memories and they are passed off as valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

I disagree about Feinstein. I realize that at least half the people on here would deny her any credit ever, but I believe when she says she intentionally waited until after the hearings so that the hearing wouldn’t be all about the allegations as was the case with Thomas. 

but in reality it should have been.  If the dude is guilty then he shouldn't be on the court and the hearing should identify that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, HR_Poke said:

but in reality it should have been.  If the dude is guilty then he shouldn't be on the court and the hearing should identify that.  

Well, it didn’t work out that way with Thomas. But in thinking about it maybe you’re right. Anita Hill was such a credible witness IMO that in today’s environment I can’t see Thomas confirmed. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

I disagree about Feinstein. I realize that at least half the people on here would deny her any credit ever, but I believe when she says she intentionally waited until after the hearings so that the hearing wouldn’t be all about the allegations as was the case with Thomas. 

Gonna have to be in that half the people here. She delivered the letter to the FBI for investigation but redacted the name. If she thought the allegation was serious and credible, it beggars belief that she told no one, not even the other Dems on the committee, until the week of confirmation. It was a completely calculated political move.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Gonna have to be in that half the people here. She delivered the letter to the FBI for investigation but redacted the name. If she thought the allegation was serious and credible, it beggars belief that she told no one, not even the other Dems on the committee, until the week of confirmation. It was a completely calculated political move.

What do you think is gained politically by waiting?

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

What do you think is gained politically by waiting?

based on the response i think she thought it would go differently.  Right now it pretty much turned all the dems on the committee and in the public against her for not bringing it forward sooner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HR_Poke said:

based on the response i think she thought it would go differently.  Right now it pretty much turned all the dems on the committee and in the public against her for not bringing it forward sooner. 

I think it’s pretty dumb either way. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Feinstein should’ve brought the information forward when she got it.  

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just what we needed. 

Ugh...

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, HR_Poke said:

based on the response i think she thought it would go differently.  Right now it pretty much turned all the dems on the committee and in the public against her for not bringing it forward sooner. 

Not sure that the fact that other Dems are upset at her is a good reason as 1) they’re likely only concerned about political expediency, and 2) I don’t trust their judgement on that anyway. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

What do you think is gained politically by waiting?

The potential for harpooning a confirmation before a replacement could be put forward before the midterms.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...