If being a complete person from 14 to 18 is the standard we are now measuring, it is "make you out to be" not "find out if you are". I have many friends and acquaintances who did dumb shit at that age who have gone on to be completely respectable and responsible adults.
Kavanaugh
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
If being a complete person from 14 to 18 is the standard we are now measuring, it is "make you out to be" not "find out if you are". I have many friends and acquaintances who did dumb shit at that age who have gone on to be completely respectable and responsible adults.
In other news, Trump doesn't know the proper use of adjectives and adverbs:
President Trump defended his Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, saying he feels "terribly" for the judge and his family in the wake of sexual assault allegations against him.
"I feel so badly for him that he is going through this to be honest with you. I feel so badly for him. This is not a man that deserves this," Trump said at a news conference Tuesday. "Honestly I feel terribly for him, for his wife who is an incredible lovely woman. And for his beautiful young daughters. I feel terribly for them."
He mentioned Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, once — but not by name. He also did not express any sympathy for her.
"Hopefully the woman will come forward, state her case," Trump said.
President Trump defended his Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, saying he feels "terribly" for the judge and his family in the wake of sexual assault allegations against him.
"I feel so badly for him that he is going through this to be honest with you. I feel so badly for him. This is not a man that deserves this," Trump said at a news conference Tuesday. "Honestly I feel terribly for him, for his wife who is an incredible lovely woman. And for his beautiful young daughters. I feel terribly for them."
He mentioned Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, once — but not by name. He also did not express any sympathy for her.
"Hopefully the woman will come forward, state her case," Trump said.
The act, if true, makes him a totally stupid , brainless, hormone-driven, d-bag, possible sexual predator.
The denial, if he did it, makes him unfit for the position.
Common Navy joke: what happens on deployment stays on deployment.
No. This is a rare case where Trump is telling the truth. He feels terribly.*
* Actually, not at all.
You want to argue that someone getting drunk and (for instance) doing something stupid like tagging a bridge at 15 shouldn't be disqualifying? I'm right there with you. Sexual assault though? If as a high-school student you didn't know that was wrong then I'm fine with that biting you later in life.
the position has way too power for way too long, with no accountability to anyone.
needs to be an elected position with a 4 yr term and a term limit of 1.
contrary to popular belief, the founding fathers were far from perfect, and couldn't foresee the future either.
needs to be an elected position with a 4 yr term and a term limit of 1.
contrary to popular belief, the founding fathers were far from perfect, and couldn't foresee the future either.
If true, perhaps. Like Sope and Zeke discussed yesterday, there are some things that when viewed through a 36 year old lens were considered rape back then. I was not a teen in the 80's but I respect Sope and he had pause on judging what constituted assault back then with how we would judge it now.
And all that is assuming that what is described is even what happened.
Sympathy for what? Expressing sympathy means something happened and it didn’t! You’re just being a Asshole.
And there it is, the adult nerd version of, "I know you are but what am I?".. #facepalm
I have thus far tried to stay out of this thread. And I am only wading in with a couple toes.
Anyone here listen to Malcolm Gladwell's podcast Revisionist History? Season 3, Episodes 3 and 4, are fascinating listens. They relate to memory, including a very enlightening explanation of how Brian Williams probably was not a liar when he claimed he was in a helicopter that took gunfire over Iraq. Sure, he was wrong in his description of what happened, but not a liar.
I am not suggesting that Professor Ford's memory is inaccurate, nor am I suggesting that Kavanaugh would be lying if he claims he was not at the party and others claim that he was.
Rather, I am suggesting that memory is nowhere near is infallible as we think, even with respect some of the more significant events in our lives.
And therein lies the problem. This is not a simple he said/she said situation, particularly after 30+ years. It would be wrong to assume that either Professor Ford or Judge Kavanaugh is lying simply because their stories (whatever those turn out to be) are contradictory.
So how should the Senate deal with the issue? Well, other than treating each of them respectfully and not portraying either as a liar (unless there is more evidence than just their respective testimony), I have no idea.
http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/23-a-polite-word-for-liar-memory-part-1
http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/24-free-brian-williams
Anyone here listen to Malcolm Gladwell's podcast Revisionist History? Season 3, Episodes 3 and 4, are fascinating listens. They relate to memory, including a very enlightening explanation of how Brian Williams probably was not a liar when he claimed he was in a helicopter that took gunfire over Iraq. Sure, he was wrong in his description of what happened, but not a liar.
I am not suggesting that Professor Ford's memory is inaccurate, nor am I suggesting that Kavanaugh would be lying if he claims he was not at the party and others claim that he was.
Rather, I am suggesting that memory is nowhere near is infallible as we think, even with respect some of the more significant events in our lives.
And therein lies the problem. This is not a simple he said/she said situation, particularly after 30+ years. It would be wrong to assume that either Professor Ford or Judge Kavanaugh is lying simply because their stories (whatever those turn out to be) are contradictory.
So how should the Senate deal with the issue? Well, other than treating each of them respectfully and not portraying either as a liar (unless there is more evidence than just their respective testimony), I have no idea.
http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/23-a-polite-word-for-liar-memory-part-1
http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/24-free-brian-williams
I read a long time ago, that for most people, some 90% of the details of what happens in our lives disappear forever within a minute. We only retain about 10%, and our country reconstructs its best estimate for the other 90% when we recall memories.
This guy just might turn out to be the biggest scumbag since my college buddy "Mike," but I'm not sure I'd read too much into those things. Of course he doesn't want to testify. Who would? Heck, it sounds as if SHE doesn't want to testify. Not wanting to testify suggests little to me, particularly for someone with nothing to gain and a lot to lose.
As far as not remembering? Well, I'm no lawyer but I've seen a lot a lawyer'n shows and it seems to me "I don't recall" is the standard safe answer, especially if you might find your ass under oath later. In my mind Kavanaugh's "No effin' way!" response was more surprising.
So I'd not make too much of his statement either way.
It's cute how you keep insisting on pushing the narrative that only the Dems would politicize the process.
You have a point. Politicizing the process is being too charitable. The Dems mocked and made it a disgusting three ring circus starring Spartacus Booker.
You damn well know it’s true and this hack job at the end is an extension of the circus. It’s not that hard.
Are you sure about that?
He also said he’s never seen Kavanaugh do anything like this. He doesn’t help or hurt.
Russian English schools aren't what they used to be.
That’s exactly what I meant. The standard answer is you don’t recall, because they can never prove that’s a lie. A much more forceful and I’m sure the answer Kavanaugh would have preferred is an unequivocal that did not happen when I was with him. If I had a friend going through something like this and I was listed as an eye witness, I like to think I’d try to help him out.
I heard once you only use about 10% of the brain, so why not fry the rest? I do not endorse that message.
Merrick Garland says hello. Scalia died on Feb 13, 2016, almost 10 mos prior to the Nov election. Kennedy announced his retirement in June, effective end of July. So far about 1 1/2 mos ago...
Why the rush? And before you reiterate Mcconnell's bastardization of "the Biden rule" it might be instructive to review what Biden ACTUALLY SAID. As well as the fact that the Dem's never acted on the Biden Rule... Btw, Biden made his speech on June 25, 1992 at a time when there was NO VACANCY on the SCOTUS. He did propose a hypothetical...
"The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.
Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992."
So if mcconnell had actually been implementing the "Biden Rule" he could have done so, without POLITICIZING the process, by scheduling a vote on Garland at some point between Nov 4 and Dec 31. The idea that Trump voters are entitled to a vote on "Trump nominees" and Obama voters were somehow NOT ENTITLED to a vote on Obama's nominee to fill a vacancy from Obama's term is BS...
What Biden actually proposed...
"Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the (Clarence) Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process, and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best."
He noted that among the previous seven nominations, two were not confirmed and two passed with strong opposition.
"In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.
"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.
"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
Biden said if Bush were to nominate someone anyway, "the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/
This part is dumb. There is no crime and it wouldn’t be in their jurisdiction. For their background check the FBI would just check with local authorities and that would be it. Actually, that would have already been done - is done.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I know. She obviously doesn’t want to testify. Of course there’s nothing to really testify to. Kavanuagh tried to rape her, thought he might kill her, no idea when or where it happened.
She didn't need birth control since Bill would rather bang anyone but her.
Well to be fair. If I almost died, I would forget where and when it happened too.
There’s not one thing Kavanuagh can do to prove he’s innocent to the Democratic Hacks in the Senate. They could give a damn less if he’s innocent. Now the question is whether Republicans bow to this hatchet job.
So the Professor’s political hack attorney said she would testify. Now there’s an excuse not to testify.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...blasey-ford-kavanaugh-senate-hearing.amp.html
She’s getting death threats, had to move from their home, email been hacked, etc. Yet you can’t understand why she didn’t come forward sooner... The misunderstanding in this entire thread about how people, generally women, react to sexual abuse, and some of the comments already from the senators let’s me know that this just is NOT something the conservative men are ever going to get. Unless they actually do some research, which of course they will not.
She’s getting death threats, had to move from their home, email been hacked, etc. Yet you can’t understand why she didn’t come forward sooner... The misunderstanding in this entire thread about how people, generally women, react to sexual abuse, and some of the comments already from the senators let’s me know that this just is NOT something the conservative men are ever going to get. Unless they actually do some research, which of course they will not.
Because attempted rape is always funny to people like you, Trump , stoll and other Neanderthals.
No you misunderstand. Everything. If she had come forward when Kavanaugh was on the DC Circuit Court or any of the 3+ decades before last week, her blowback would have been essentially nil.
Her and Feinstein coordinated this when Kavanaugh was up for vote because they're both political hacks.
I guess she only cares about being raped when she can use it to sink a nomination.
These kind of threats would have happened from the moonbats on the left if this was a Democratic President’s nominee and a woman made the same claim. The fringes aren’t most of us. At least it’s not me, I won’t speak for you.
Similar threads
