Wise 1 wrote:
15 vs 17 wrote:
Learn you something:
https://rape.uslegal.com/assault-with-intent-to-commit-rape/Here's some advice, son. Don't post again until you are at least an L2.
I was thinking the same thing.
Must be a first semester L1.
Wise 1 wrote:
15 vs 17 wrote:
Learn you something:
https://rape.uslegal.com/assault-with-intent-to-commit-rape/Here's some advice, son. Don't post again until you are at least an L2.
I was thinking the same thing.
Must be a first semester L1.
Racket wrote:
Obvi wrote:
Attempted rape should disqualify anyone from EVER serving on the SCOTUS. To think otherwise is to trivialize the crime or to dishonor the SCOTUS. Possibly both.
Sorry, but it really is that simple.
He's being accused of sexual assault, not rape.
He is not currently guilty of anything. Why are you all so determined it's a done deal? The only prudent action is to follow through with an investigation and do the due diligence. I don't like the guy, but let's not call him a certified rapist yet.
Look, she was age 15. It is rape whether it was consensual or not. Assault with intent to rape --as has been pointed out-- is considered rape.
Kavanaugh is DONE. It is as simple as that.
Trump needs to put up one of his other options for the Supreme Court. It is really this simple.
Flagpole hasn't posted in over an hour. Anybody else think he might be dead. Somebody should check on him.
Rapered wrote:
Racket wrote:
He's being accused of sexual assault, not rape.
He is not currently guilty of anything. Why are you all so determined it's a done deal? The only prudent action is to follow through with an investigation and do the due diligence. I don't like the guy, but let's not call him a certified rapist yet.
Look, she was age 15. It is rape whether it was consensual or not. Assault with intent to rape --as has been pointed out-- is considered rape.
Kavanaugh is DONE. It is as simple as that.
Trump needs to put up one of his other options for the Supreme Court. It is really this simple.
He's still innocent unless found to be otherwise. As for being "DONE," ask Flagpole about how "DONE" Trump was in September 2016. There is no shame with any of those people, and I would not even be remotely surprised if Republicans try to ram his nomination through. Anita Hill (Clarence Thomas' accuser) testified as well and she was ripped apart and then he was put on the bench.
Racket wrote:
Rapered wrote:
Look, she was age 15. It is rape whether it was consensual or not. Assault with intent to rape --as has been pointed out-- is considered rape.
Kavanaugh is DONE. It is as simple as that.
Trump needs to put up one of his other options for the Supreme Court. It is really this simple.
He's still innocent unless found to be otherwise. As for being "DONE," ask Flagpole about how "DONE" Trump was in September 2016. There is no shame with any of those people, and I would not even be remotely surprised if Republicans try to ram his nomination through. Anita Hill (Clarence Thomas' accuser) testified as well and she was ripped apart and then he was put on the bench.
An allegation has been dropped on Kavanaugh, by a very very credible person.
McConnell will show his true colors and force a vote on Kavanaugh this week. He could care less about whether the allegation is true or not.
2016 and Flagpole have nothing to do with my post. What my post is about is that Trump failed to properly vet this candidate. In fact, it is more than likely Trump had his staff work very hard to cover everything up that was questionable about Kavanaugh. So, the entire blame for this mess is on Trump.
Racket wrote:
Obvi wrote:
Attempted rape should disqualify anyone from EVER serving on the SCOTUS. To think otherwise is to trivialize the crime or to dishonor the SCOTUS. Possibly both.
Sorry, but it really is that simple.
He's being accused of sexual assault, not rape.
He is not currently guilty of anything. Why are you all so determined it's a done deal? The only prudent action is to follow through with an investigation and do the due diligence. I don't like the guy, but let's not call him a certified rapist yet.
You are a liar.
Let me know when you are willing to post without lying.
15 vs 17 wrote:
Rapier? wrote:
Is he accused of rape?
A 17 year old boy having sex with a 15 year old girl is considered rape even if she consented.
Now this is just getting stupid. Did Letsrunners not have sex in HS? Never been 17 having sex with a 15 yr old?
There are way too many emotional responses by kids on here who I assume are no older than 22.
BTW, polls show about 40/40 for/against for Kavanaugh. So not as cut and dry as some would think....
Alan
If he is not confirmed, he is going to sue her into Bolivia.
Runningart2004 wrote:
What seems to be lacking here is context.
Again, what most likely occurred is two drunk teenagers having sex, an 18 yr old kid probably knowingly taking advantage of a situation he regretted soon afterwards. A teen female also regretting her decisions that night and unable to give consent.
Context matters.
He didn’t rape a 10yr old, he wasn’t some 30+ yr old trying to get frisky with HS girls, he wasn’t a predator. Was it sexual assault? Sure, but again context matters. It was a drunken bad decision he made as an 18 yr old with another drunken teenager. Like any of us at the time...he was trying to get some. It’s not an excuse, but I don’t believe the moral standard should be raised just because he’s a SCOTUS appointee. His professional conduct and more recent (this century?) personal conduct should be what decides this. Not some 35yr old stuff some Democrat drudged out of the creek just because it works in her favor in the current political climate and gives her brownie points heading into 2020.
I don’t think this situation merits further discussion as it relates to his SCOTUS appointment. We can agree to disagree.
The Democrats are “winning” here and they know it. It has nothing to do with the victim. It’s all theatrics. At least with Clarence Thomas it was a relatively recent act of indiscretion that called into question his professionalism.
Alan
Wow. You are excusing away a sexual assault and just flat out not believing she had no interest in this. That is wrong, brother. She should at least be heard. Your minimizing of this accusation is a big problem. You need some self reflection and perhaps a class on appropriate behavior.
Runningart2004 wrote:
15 vs 17 wrote:
A 17 year old boy having sex with a 15 year old girl is considered rape even if she consented.
Now this is just getting stupid. Did Letsrunners not have sex in HS? Never been 17 having sex with a 15 yr old?
There are way too many emotional responses by kids on here who I assume are no older than 22.
BTW, polls show about 40/40 for/against for Kavanaugh. So not as cut and dry as some would think....
Alan
Alan, the one being blind (stupid using your words) is you.
A 17 year old boy having sex with a 15 year old girl is guilty of rape. A 15 year CANNOT give consent.
That is the law.
That is how it works.
You entirely ignore that the she DID NOT give consent. She was locked in a room by older two boys. She was assaulted.
How many under the age to 16 girls did you have sex with when you were of the legal age of consent and they were not? What are you working so hard to pretend never happened in your past?
Democrats are “funny”
Runningart2004 wrote:
BTW, polls show about 40/40 for/against for Kavanaugh. So not as cut and dry as some would think....
BTW, 40% is the lowest for a SCOTUS nominee in many, many years. So not as cut and dry as you wish it was.
MT wrote:
If he is not confirmed, he is going to sue her into Bolivia.
Using what money? He is in deep debt.
MT wrote:
If he is not confirmed, he is going to sue her into Bolivia.
No he won't. He's not that stupid.
Fat hurts wrote:
MT wrote:
If he is not confirmed, he is going to sue her into Bolivia.
No he won't. He's not that stupid.
apparently his salary will stay the same in his current or potential SCOTUS job, so hard for him to prove to a court any financial damage
seems clear to me that the odds are:
25% he withdraws
75% there is a hearing, he speaks, the woman speaks, then the senate votes 50/50 to confirm, with pence sealing the deal.
That fires up Dem women EVEN MORE than they are already fired up, and the house flips 50 seats and the senate moves into play.
You don't mess with the women. Men never seem to learn this.
MT wrote:
If he is not confirmed, he is going to sue her into Bolivia.
Hmm...I didn't know that was a thing. :)
What money wrote:
MT wrote:
If he is not confirmed, he is going to sue her into Bolivia.
Using what money? He is in deep debt.
It is weird that Trump nominated someone who:
1) Is deeply in debt
2) Has a drinking problem
3) Has a gambling problem
I am giving him a pass on the sexual assault because it is not proven and Trump may not have known about it.
There have to be lots of very conservative candidates out there who aren't so f'd up in their personal lives. So why Kavanaugh?
Onedering wrote:
What money wrote:
Using what money? He is in deep debt.
It is weird that Trump nominated someone who:
1) Is deeply in debt
2) Has a drinking problem
3) Has a gambling problem
I am giving him a pass on the sexual assault because it is not proven and Trump may not have known about it.
There have to be lots of very conservative candidates out there who aren't so f'd up in their personal lives. So why Kavanaugh?
Trump chose Kavanaugh because his view of the Constitution is very deferential to the Executive Branch. He's an autocrat's dream.
Fat hurts wrote:
Onedering wrote:
It is weird that Trump nominated someone who:
1) Is deeply in debt
2) Has a drinking problem
3) Has a gambling problem
I am giving him a pass on the sexual assault because it is not proven and Trump may not have known about it.
There have to be lots of very conservative candidates out there who aren't so f'd up in their personal lives. So why Kavanaugh?
Trump chose Kavanaugh because his view of the Constitution is very deferential to the Executive Branch. He's an autocrat's dream.
CORRECT!
So, someone who Trump picked ends up being a piece of crap. Kind of par for the course now. Anything the Orange One touches was either sh!t already or quickly turns that way.
Public Interrogation wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Indeed, you'll need to keep it coming. They must not have any real dirt on Christine Ford if that's the best you can do. So far it looks like she's going to make a great witness.
She has stated she wants a public interrogation by the Republicans. Let's watch the Republican try to force their interrogation to be classified as top secret.
Like Obama did with in house meetings...no republicans allowed! Didn't bother you then, so why should your pleas bother us now? You're an idiot, and that's on your best day.