Kavanaugh Official Merge for Oct 2nd, 2018

[Correll]

1. If your wife vouched, it would be relevant. Unless you discount your wife's opinion. Keep in mind, she could read this.

2. THe timing very late in the nomination process, late enough to be very disruptive, but not late enough to be ignored, and the vote goes on. Suspicious timing.


3. Being famous in a liberal environment for fighting against Evul Republicans, not to mention money.

None of it is an answer. Should I vote for this guy?

When all you have is a ghost of a rumor? Of course.

It's not a ghost of a rumour. It's a second hand account of sexual assault.
Ford is a first hand account.
Ah. So my responsibility isn't to the students but to the coach? I disagree.
In the end, my responsibility lies with the safety of that girls softball team. If that means that someone qualified misses out on a job for someone else qualified that's to bad for him.

1. Unverifiable hearsay.

2. Using that logic, you why you even considering male coaches? Or unmarried women?

Neither male coaches or unmarried woman have been accused, my theoretical guy has been. I don't think that's an unreasonable position.

Why take chances? Your responsibility is to the girls.


So, it's unfair to discount some one because they are male, or because they might be a lesbian.


What do you care? Your responsibility is to the girls.

 

[Meister]

Inspired here: So here's what I think happened between Kavanaugh & Ford

Maybe

But I think it was more than just a dry hump for fun

He tried to remove her clothes but she had a bathing suit on underneath and he gave up

Did she fight him off hard? Or was she drunk too and giggling/play pushing him off of her?

I've seen many drunk girls at parties in the 1980s. I can tell you that a girl going to a party with the intent of getting drunk around a bunch of horny young guys also getting drunk KNOWS the situation she's willingly walking into. Ladies, don't go to bawdy parties with horny young guys getting drunk, get drunk yourself, and then not anticipate some "rubbing up against you" or serious efforts to get into your panties.

Why is nobody talking about how the judge stopped undressing the girl and walked away instead of actually raping her? He showed restraint while young and drunk with a young drunk girl in front of him who came to the party with an inkling that horny young drunk men would be there attentive to her sexual attractiveness?

Come here, come here come here....get away, get away, get away...come here come here come here... etc.

So did he show restraint by stopping, drunk, young, male and horny with a drunk party girl in front of him? Discuss

Um, pulling a girl into a room against her will, holding her down as she tried to get up, covering her mouth when she tried to scream to the extent that she thought he might inadvertantly kill her and trying to remove her clothes is not 'restraint'.

And if your daughter were similarly assaulted, I would hope she is believed.

And, if your son is accused of a sexual crime from a woman/girl with as little evidence as this, I want you to side with the accuser,
and not with your son.

 

[Correll]

More deflections from the right .

Now we know why the gop his so much on Kav and want to rush things thru. Cause there was so much bad shit on Kav .

He was an a hole at the senate . Not judicial at all . He painted a picture that he was a book worm who occasionally had a sip of beer. Total BS !

The guy looks less and less credible every day.

"Rushing"? LOL!!!

 

[forkup]

None of it is an answer. Should I vote for this guy?

When all you have is a ghost of a rumor? Of course.

It's not a ghost of a rumour. It's a second hand account of sexual assault.
Ford is a first hand account.
Ah. So my responsibility isn't to the students but to the coach? I disagree.
In the end, my responsibility lies with the safety of that girls softball team. If that means that someone qualified misses out on a job for someone else qualified that's to bad for him.

1. Unverifiable hearsay.

2. Using that logic, you why you even considering male coaches? Or unmarried women?

Neither male coaches or unmarried woman have been accused, my theoretical guy has been. I don't think that's an unreasonable position.

Why take chances? Your responsibility is to the girls.


So, it's unfair to discount some one because they are male, or because they might be a lesbian.


What do you care? Your responsibility is to the girls.

Neither of your examples give you a reason to discount them. Your lesbian woman is even nonsensical. I always have found those arguments insane. I'm heterosexual do you have REASON to believe I attack woman? Why would you have REASON to believe lesbians accost girls? In my example I could point to information that give me reason to believe this guy should not be around girls. Your example gives nothing of the sort.

 

[Skylar]

Inspired here: So here's what I think happened between Kavanaugh & Ford

Maybe

But I think it was more than just a dry hump for fun

He tried to remove her clothes but she had a bathing suit on underneath and he gave up

Did she fight him off hard? Or was she drunk too and giggling/play pushing him off of her?

I've seen many drunk girls at parties in the 1980s. I can tell you that a girl going to a party with the intent of getting drunk around a bunch of horny young guys also getting drunk KNOWS the situation she's willingly walking into. Ladies, don't go to bawdy parties with horny young guys getting drunk, get drunk yourself, and then not anticipate some "rubbing up against you" or serious efforts to get into your panties.

Why is nobody talking about how the judge stopped undressing the girl and walked away instead of actually raping her? He showed restraint while young and drunk with a young drunk girl in front of him who came to the party with an inkling that horny young drunk men would be there attentive to her sexual attractiveness?

Come here, come here come here....get away, get away, get away...come here come here come here... etc.

So did he show restraint by stopping, drunk, young, male and horny with a drunk party girl in front of him? Discuss

Um, pulling a girl into a room against her will, holding her down as she tried to get up, covering her mouth when she tried to scream to the extent that she thought he might inadvertantly kill her and trying to remove her clothes is not 'restraint'.

And if your daughter were similarly assaulted, I would hope she is believed.

And, if your son is accused of a sexual crime from a woman/girl with as little evidence as this, I want you to side with the accuser,
and not with your son.

If it were my son, I'd be responding emotionally. Not rationally

And I certainly wouldn't demean the girl by calling her a 'party slut'. If conservatives think this kind of naked misogeny is going to endear them to women voters, November may well prove them wrong.

 

[Skylar]

More deflections from the right .

Now we know why the gop his so much on Kav and want to rush things thru. Cause there was so much bad shit on Kav .

He was an a hole at the senate . Not judicial at all . He painted a picture that he was a book worm who occasionally had a sip of beer. Total BS !

The guy looks less and less credible every day.

"Rushing"? LOL!!!

Rushing. Why put an artificial time limit on the investigation? The FBI should take the time they need.

 

[Correll]

When all you have is a ghost of a rumor? Of course.

It's not a ghost of a rumour. It's a second hand account of sexual assault.
Ford is a first hand account.
Ah. So my responsibility isn't to the students but to the coach? I disagree.
In the end, my responsibility lies with the safety of that girls softball team. If that means that someone qualified misses out on a job for someone else qualified that's to bad for him.

1. Unverifiable hearsay.

2. Using that logic, you why you even considering male coaches? Or unmarried women?

Neither male coaches or unmarried woman have been accused, my theoretical guy has been. I don't think that's an unreasonable position.

Why take chances? Your responsibility is to the girls.


So, it's unfair to discount some one because they are male, or because they might be a lesbian.


What do you care? Your responsibility is to the girls.

Neither of your examples give you a reason to discount them. Your lesbian woman is even nonsensical. I always have found those arguments insane. I'm heterosexual do you have REASON to believe I attack woman? Why would you have REASON to believe lesbians accost girls? In my example I could point to information that give me reason to believe this guy should not be around girls. Your example gives nothing of the sort.

Sure there is a reason. NOt a good one.

BUt neither is a ghost of a rumor.

That's my point. I took your logic to the next logical step. NOt even a logical CONCLUSION, just one more little, tiny step.

 

[Correll]

More deflections from the right .

Now we know why the gop his so much on Kav and want to rush things thru. Cause there was so much bad shit on Kav .

He was an a hole at the senate . Not judicial at all . He painted a picture that he was a book worm who occasionally had a sip of beer. Total BS !

The guy looks less and less credible every day.

"Rushing"? LOL!!!

Rushing. Why put an artificial time limit on the investigation? The FBI should take the time they need.

They waited MONTHS, after they had the information of the accusation, waiting to the most disruptive time to release it.


And now you accuse REPUBLICANS of rushing?


lol!!!

 

[CHAZBUKOWSKI]

Inspired here: So here's what I think happened between Kavanaugh & Ford

Maybe

But I think it was more than just a dry hump for fun

He tried to remove her clothes but she had a bathing suit on underneath and he gave up

Did she fight him off hard? Or was she drunk too and giggling/play pushing him off of her?

I've seen many drunk girls at parties in the 1980s. I can tell you that a girl going to a party with the intent of getting drunk around a bunch of horny young guys also getting drunk KNOWS the situation she's willingly walking into. Ladies, don't go to bawdy parties with horny young guys getting drunk, get drunk yourself, and then not anticipate some "rubbing up against you" or serious efforts to get into your panties.

Why is nobody talking about how the judge stopped undressing the girl and walked away instead of actually raping her? He showed restraint while young and drunk with a young drunk girl in front of him who came to the party with an inkling that horny young drunk men would be there attentive to her sexual attractiveness?

Come here, come here come here....get away, get away, get away...come here come here come here... etc.

So did he show restraint by stopping, drunk, young, male and horny with a drunk party girl in front of him? Discuss

Shocking that the board’s resident rapists would resort to vile name calling in order to defend a like minded sexual predator

 

[forkup]

It's not a ghost of a rumour. It's a second hand account of sexual assault.
Ford is a first hand account.
Ah. So my responsibility isn't to the students but to the coach? I disagree.
In the end, my responsibility lies with the safety of that girls softball team. If that means that someone qualified misses out on a job for someone else qualified that's to bad for him.

1. Unverifiable hearsay.

2. Using that logic, you why you even considering male coaches? Or unmarried women?

Neither male coaches or unmarried woman have been accused, my theoretical guy has been. I don't think that's an unreasonable position.

Why take chances? Your responsibility is to the girls.


So, it's unfair to discount some one because they are male, or because they might be a lesbian.


What do you care? Your responsibility is to the girls.

Neither of your examples give you a reason to discount them. Your lesbian woman is even nonsensical. I always have found those arguments insane. I'm heterosexual do you have REASON to believe I attack woman? Why would you have REASON to believe lesbians accost girls? In my example I could point to information that give me reason to believe this guy should not be around girls. Your example gives nothing of the sort.

Sure there is a reason. NOt a good one.

BUt neither is a ghost of a rumor.

That's my point. I took your logic to the next logical step. NOt even a logical CONCLUSION, just one more little, tiny step.

Not a good one? Well I can only say that if you find my analogy not sufficient reasoning to disqualify someone from a job, I hope you never have to hire someone. Or for that matter have to take responsibility for anything. I also think, just my personal opinion, that it's bullshit. I refuse to believe that you would want someone being accused of that coaching your daughter, or anybody elses.

 

[Leo123]

Are you suggesting the FBI will make up facts?

After lying about the dossier? Of course they make up facts.

 

[Correll]

1. Unverifiable hearsay.

2. Using that logic, you why you even considering male coaches? Or unmarried women?

Neither male coaches or unmarried woman have been accused, my theoretical guy has been. I don't think that's an unreasonable position.

Why take chances? Your responsibility is to the girls.


So, it's unfair to discount some one because they are male, or because they might be a lesbian.


What do you care? Your responsibility is to the girls.

Neither of your examples give you a reason to discount them. Your lesbian woman is even nonsensical. I always have found those arguments insane. I'm heterosexual do you have REASON to believe I attack woman? Why would you have REASON to believe lesbians accost girls? In my example I could point to information that give me reason to believe this guy should not be around girls. Your example gives nothing of the sort.

Sure there is a reason. NOt a good one.

BUt neither is a ghost of a rumor.

That's my point. I took your logic to the next logical step. NOt even a logical CONCLUSION, just one more little, tiny step.

Not a good one? Well I can only say that if you find my analogy not sufficient reasoning to disqualify someone from a job, I hope you never have to hire someone. Or for that matter have to take responsibility for anything. I also think, just my personal opinion, that it's bullshit. I refuse to believe that you would want someone like that coaching your daughter, or anybody elses.

We talked about your analogy. I took it one step further and you didn't like it.


EXPLAIN why my "one further step" was not reasonable, given your position, or admit that it is your position that is unreasonable.

 

[forkup]

It's not a ghost of a rumour. It's a second hand account of sexual assault.
Ford is a first hand account.
Ah. So my responsibility isn't to the students but to the coach? I disagree.
In the end, my responsibility lies with the safety of that girls softball team. If that means that someone qualified misses out on a job for someone else qualified that's to bad for him.

1. Unverifiable hearsay.

2. Using that logic, you why you even considering male coaches? Or unmarried women?

Neither male coaches or unmarried woman have been accused, my theoretical guy has been. I don't think that's an unreasonable position.

Why take chances? Your responsibility is to the girls.


So, it's unfair to discount some one because they are male, or because they might be a lesbian.


What do you care? Your responsibility is to the girls.

Neither of your examples give you a reason to discount them. Your lesbian woman is even nonsensical. I always have found those arguments insane. I'm heterosexual do you have REASON to believe I attack woman? Why would you have REASON to believe lesbians accost girls? In my example I could point to information that give me reason to believe this guy should not be around girls. Your example gives nothing of the sort.

Sure there is a reason. NOt a good one.

BUt neither is a ghost of a rumor.

That's my point. I took your logic to the next logical step. NOt even a logical CONCLUSION, just one more little, tiny step.

Your next logical step, completely changes the premise of the analogy. And again not the ghost of a rumor. A first or second hand account. Brought by someone that your own side deemed credible and compelling. Not my words but those of Trump.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

For your analogy to be a good analogy we need to add a few points.

1. It can't be someone your wife can vouch for. It has to be a complete stranger spreading hearsay.

2. The stranger has to come forward at the last minute for suspicious reasons.

3. The stranger has to have motive to lie.

4. THere has to be a huge movement pushing very strongly against the coach for unrelated reasons.



The information has already NOT checked out. The timing of the accusation was completely the dems fault.

-Wether or not someone I personally know vouches for someone spreading something unverifiable should not be relevant. My wife after all could be mistaking.
-You call it suspicious reasons. I don't think someone speaking out about sexual assault years after the event is suspicious. Revenge is a pretty good motive in this case.
-Being sexually assaulted is a good motive to speak up. And if you think the what Ford did, didn't come at great personal cost you are out of your mind. So what motive do you think she has, that overcomes that cost?
-This is maybe the only thing my analogy isn't completely on point. So lets just give you this one.
- So just consider that in my coach analogy the guy is universally considered an dick. Now should I vote for this coach?

1. If your wife vouched, it would be relevant. Unless you discount your wife's opinion. Keep in mind, she could read this.

2. THe timing very late in the nomination process, late enough to be very disruptive, but not late enough to be ignored, and the vote goes on. Suspicious timing.


3. Being famous in a liberal environment for fighting against Evul Republicans, not to mention money.

None of it is an answer. Should I vote for this guy?

When all you have is a ghost of a rumor? Of course.

It's not a ghost of a rumour. It's a second hand account of sexual assault.
Ford is a first hand account.
Ah. So my responsibility isn't to the students but to the coach? I disagree.
In the end, my responsibility lies with the safety of that girls softball team. If that means that someone qualified misses out on a job for someone else qualified that's to bad for him.

Would you like to ruin the mans entire life over an unproven allegation? How about if we did that with everybody? Why not just change our entire justice system to the liberal way: guilty until proven innocent? Seems to worked out okay for the Nazi's and Dictators of the world.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

-Being sexually assaulted is a good motive to speak up. And if you think that what Ford did, didn't come at great personal cost you are out of your mind. So what motive do you think she has, that overcomes that cost?

She's a Democrat activist. She's been known to dance around in pussy hats protesting Trump and Republicans in general.

There are way too many holes in her story for her to be believed. If you wanted to create a story where nobody could find anything including the FBI, this is the exact way you would do it.

 

[forkup]

-Wether or not someone I personally know vouches for someone spreading something unverifiable should not be relevant. My wife after all could be mistaking.
-You call it suspicious reasons. I don't think someone speaking out about sexual assault years after the event is suspicious. Revenge is a pretty good motive in this case.
-Being sexually assaulted is a good motive to speak up. And if you think the what Ford did, didn't come at great personal cost you are out of your mind. So what motive do you think she has, that overcomes that cost?
-This is maybe the only thing my analogy isn't completely on point. So lets just give you this one.
- So just consider that in my coach analogy the guy is universally considered an dick. Now should I vote for this coach?

1. If your wife vouched, it would be relevant. Unless you discount your wife's opinion. Keep in mind, she could read this.

2. THe timing very late in the nomination process, late enough to be very disruptive, but not late enough to be ignored, and the vote goes on. Suspicious timing.


3. Being famous in a liberal environment for fighting against Evul Republicans, not to mention money.

None of it is an answer. Should I vote for this guy?

When all you have is a ghost of a rumor? Of course.

It's not a ghost of a rumour. It's a second hand account of sexual assault.
Ford is a first hand account.
Ah. So my responsibility isn't to the students but to the coach? I disagree.
In the end, my responsibility lies with the safety of that girls softball team. If that means that someone qualified misses out on a job for someone else qualified that's to bad for him.

Would you like to ruin the mans entire life over an unproven allegation? How about if we did that with everybody? Why not just change our entire justice system to the liberal way: guilty until proven innocent? Seems to worked out okay for the Nazi's and Dictators of the world.

First, neither in my analogy or the actual Kavanaugh case can you speak that a life is ruined. They miss out on a job. I've not gotten every job I went after in my life, have you? I'm also of the opinion that IF he would be guilty and public shaming is the worst you suffer, you've gotten of light. I speak from personal experience, from the standpoint of someone who's wife is a victim.
Second, no one credible, as far as I'm aware is even suggesting that we prosecute Kavanaugh.
Third,guilty until proven innocent?? Lets see..... Benghazi, Pizzagate, Seth Rich, Birtherism, E-mails, that Uranium thing. If I go up and look up your position on those things, what are the chances I will find you saying innocent until proven guilty? Not saying you even have a position on all of them but at NO time did you make the claim innocent until proven guilty, on any of these things, unless I'm terribly mistaking.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

-As to the rest. Ford has given easily verifiable information as to the timing of her coming forward. The timing is BEFORE he was ever nominated. Blaming the Democrats for that accusation therefor is false. Unless of course the information doesn't check out in which case Kavanaugh is exonerated.

What timing?

She can't say what day it was.
Can't say what year it was.
Can't say what street it happened on
Can't say who hosted the party.

 

[forkup]

-Being sexually assaulted is a good motive to speak up. And if you think that what Ford did, didn't come at great personal cost you are out of your mind. So what motive do you think she has, that overcomes that cost?

She's a Democrat activist. She's been known to dance around in pussy hats protesting Trump and Republicans in general.

There are way too many holes in her story for her to be believed. If you wanted to create a story where nobody could find anything including the FBI, this is the exact way you would do it.

What are those holes?

 

[forkup]

-As to the rest. Ford has given easily verifiable information as to the timing of her coming forward. The timing is BEFORE he was ever nominated. Blaming the Democrats for that accusation therefor is false. Unless of course the information doesn't check out in which case Kavanaugh is exonerated.

What timing?

She can't say what day it was.
Can't say what year it was.
Can't say what street it happened on
Can't say who hosted the party.

The timing of when she came forward with her accusation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

1. If your wife vouched, it would be relevant. Unless you discount your wife's opinion. Keep in mind, she could read this.

2. THe timing very late in the nomination process, late enough to be very disruptive, but not late enough to be ignored, and the vote goes on. Suspicious timing.


3. Being famous in a liberal environment for fighting against Evul Republicans, not to mention money.

None of it is an answer. Should I vote for this guy?

When all you have is a ghost of a rumor? Of course.

It's not a ghost of a rumour. It's a second hand account of sexual assault.
Ford is a first hand account.
Ah. So my responsibility isn't to the students but to the coach? I disagree.
In the end, my responsibility lies with the safety of that girls softball team. If that means that someone qualified misses out on a job for someone else qualified that's to bad for him.

Would you like to ruin the mans entire life over an unproven allegation? How about if we did that with everybody? Why not just change our entire justice system to the liberal way: guilty until proven innocent? Seems to worked out okay for the Nazi's and Dictators of the world.

First, neither in my analogy or the actual Kavanaugh case can you speak that a life is ruined. They miss out on a job. I've not gotten every job I went after in my life, have you? I'm also of the opinion that IF he would be guilty and public shaming is the worst you suffer, you've gotten of light. I speak from personal experience, from the standpoint of someone who's wife is a victim.
Second, no one credible, as far as I'm aware is even suggesting that we prosecute Kavanaugh.
Third,guilty until proven innocent?? Lets see..... Benghazi, Pizzagate, Seth Rich, Birtherism, E-mails, that Uranium thing. If I go up and look up your position on those things, what are the chances I will find you saying innocent until proven guilty? Not saying you even have a position on all of them but at NO time did you make the claim innocent until proven guilty, on any of these things, unless I'm terribly mistaking.

In spite of all those things, Hillary still ran for President--while under FBI investigation. And who knows, she may still run again, and you will vote for her again. For crying out loud, the woman was so drunk she couldn't complete a 911 dedication. She couldn't even make it back to her van without passing out.

If Kavansugh doesn't get this job and goes to the private sector, and was refused a job because somebody accused him of something, he'd be able to sue that company into the next generation.