considered, fine. But without any proof, an unsubstantiated 36 year old allegation ruining someone's life. What he says should be considered as well. Find me the 4th person at this party that will say Kavanaugh was there, and I will give the accusation more credence. Kavanaugh says he was not even at this "party" of 4, whenever it occurred which the woman making the allegation that is was Kavanaugh does not recall.
Flagpole wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
Well yes that’s attempted rape, according to her testimony. Again I wonder why now? Why wait 35yrs?
So I’ll say yes, a 17yr old HS kid attempted to rape a 15yr old girl. It’s sad, it’s horrbile, but again that was a lifetime ago. I just don’t think it should affect his appointment. Mostly because this incident would never have come up otherwise, it’s using a sad horrible 35yr old incident for political gain.
Alan
WTF Alan? She was bothered by this more than 6 years ago enough to talk to a therapist and her husband about it, including telling her husband that this person could one day maybe be sitting on the Supreme Court. She was the one allegedly assaulted. She gets to decide when and why and even if she wants to come out with that information. Obviously it bothers her that someone who would do that might end up on the Supreme Court. Guess that was the last straw for her, and again, SHE gets to determine what the last straw is, not you.
Is Kavanaugh named in the therapist notes?
Runningart2004 wrote:
What is WRONG with you?!? wrote:
There you go again - creating an alternate reality and trying to pass it off as the real thing. HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED??? Nobody knows except for the 2 or 3 who were there. That is why they have scheduled hearings to try to get to the truth. And yet you repeatedly come on here and try to foist your completely uninformed opinion of what when on as fact. It is nothing of the sort.
So, what the fvck is wrong with you that you feel such a need to create this fiction? In all seriousness, what is in your own past that has turned you from being a reasonable poster into basically a liar? STOP MAKING SH!T UP AND TRYING TO HAVE THE NARRATIVE REVOLVE AROUND YOUR MADE UP SH!T!
Does the yelling in all caps make you feel better? It doesn’t make your opinion more valid than mine.
All I am doing is wrapping my head around a realistic scenario in which this sexual assault may or may not have happened. Because as I have said context matters.
Now let me reiterate my points for clarity:
1. This has nothing to do with the victim. This is nothing more than Democrats digging for dirt in an election year, looking for the moral high ground coming up on the 2018 midterms. It also gives political credibility and brownie points to potential 2020 candidates .
2. Now correct me if I’m wrong because I really don’t care about the details. This was a high school party. With a bunch drunk teenagers. A 17-year-old and his friend had a 15 yr old in a room. One or possibly both of these guys attempted to have sex with her. Now from what I’ve gathered this is the story is it not? This was 35 years ago. Drunk teenagers doing stupid stuff making stupid decisions.
Should we all be dragged over the coals for stuff we did or didn’t do 35 years ago in high school?
Now craft your witty response, I am sure it will be impeccable. Also It is not my life’s dream to be a reasonable let’s run poster. I simply don’t care. Your opinion of me means absolutely nothing .
We simply share a difference of opinion on a complex matter
Alan
1) It's not a complex matter. You are excusing away sexual assault because he was a "kid". Cut it out. 17 year olds are put away for a long time for sexual assault brother.
2) Your opinion is wrong. Stop posting on this issue.
if by dancing around the truth you mean denying he ever this to anyone ever, and was not at this supposed party, yes I guess that is dancing around the truth. He has already said that and he will be asked again on Monday, I am sure.
Flagpole wrote:
Towering Trump wrote:
So, Trump Tower meeting = Collusion?
Troll, read the post.
I'm really stupid. Just answer the question.
Trollminator wrote:
Duane wrote:
"He will either become SCJ or keep his job in either scenario." Um, no if he is found to have lied to Congress he will be impeached. Career (at least as a judge) over.
You mean serve out his term and retire early - not removed from job. He may step down but they won’t remove him. Plus he is presumably a smart guy - he’s not going to lie, he’s going to dance around the truth under oath if he’s guilty. I could be wrong about that, given his record.
If he did this, he will have to lie at this point. They can and will ask very pointed questions that he will not be able to dance around. He has already gone all in on this. He will lie to his grave (if he did indeed do this).
Duane wrote:
considered, fine. But without any proof, an unsubstantiated 36 year old allegation ruining someone's life. What he says should be considered as well. Find me the 4th person at this party that will say Kavanaugh was there, and I will give the accusation more credence. Kavanaugh says he was not even at this "party" of 4, whenever it occurred which the woman making the allegation that is was Kavanaugh does not recall.
Of course, WHY should her life be ruined for 36 years because of an assault. Going to couples therapy indicates their are issues that the assault has on her marriage. So, why should Kavanaugh claiming he does not remember because he was drunk ... scratch that ... because he wasn't there ... scratch that ... because he young and silly ... scratch that ... because he wants a SCOTUS seat at any cost without regard to anyone else's life.
BTW: How did you arrive at ONLY 4 people at the party? One 15 year old girls. Two 17 year old, drunk male pals. And who else? Another 15 year old; maybe one who managed to escape?
Peter, Paul, & Mary wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Excusing away sexual assault. You are just flat wrong on this. You aren't going to make us think you are right, so you should take your medicine and stop posting on this subject. And, just in case you want to reply, I will make sure that the correct position on this (the opposite of yours) is the last word.
Will it be you getting the last word or one of your aliases.
Asking for a friend.
Ha! What alias?
Why do I think she is wrong? Because I do not think she is lying, just mistaken about who did it. Because per people who knew him then what she says about him being drunk and out of control is totally out of character. Because she cannot recall more details about that day, such as where it was and even what year it was.
Towering Trump wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Troll, read the post.
I'm really stupid. Just answer the question.
I'm not in this to educate ALL the stupid people in the world. The answer is there. Not my fault that you are self-described stupid.
Runningart2004 wrote:
What is WRONG with you?!? wrote:
There you go again - creating an alternate reality and trying to pass it off as the real thing. HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED??? Nobody knows except for the 2 or 3 who were there. That is why they have scheduled hearings to try to get to the truth. And yet you repeatedly come on here and try to foist your completely uninformed opinion of what when on as fact. It is nothing of the sort.
So, what the fvck is wrong with you that you feel such a need to create this fiction? In all seriousness, what is in your own past that has turned you from being a reasonable poster into basically a liar? STOP MAKING SH!T UP AND TRYING TO HAVE THE NARRATIVE REVOLVE AROUND YOUR MADE UP SH!T!
Does the yelling in all caps make you feel better? It doesn’t make your opinion more valid than mine.
All I am doing is wrapping my head around a realistic scenario in which this sexual assault may or may not have happened. Because as I have said context matters.
Now let me reiterate my points for clarity:
1. This has nothing to do with the victim. This is nothing more than Democrats digging for dirt in an election year, looking for the moral high ground coming up on the 2018 midterms. It also gives political credibility and brownie points to potential 2020 candidates .
Doesn't matter. If there’s a criminal allegation it must be taken into account. This is a nomination for SCJ not toll collector. That the Dems are politicizing it sucks for the GOP and the people involved but is irrelevant to the specific accusation.
2. Now correct me if I’m wrong because I really don’t care about the details. This was a high school party. With a bunch drunk teenagers. A 17-year-old and his friend had a 15 yr old in a room. One or possibly both of these guys attempted to have sex with her. Now from what I’ve gathered this is the story is it not? This was 35 years ago. Drunk teenagers doing stupid stuff making stupid decisions.
Should we all be dragged over the coals for stuff we did or didn’t do 35 years ago in high school?
No not all of us, but a nominee for SCJ should be during vetting. That’s how it works, the position is one of the highest standards if not the highest. You pretty much have to have an unblemished record. If you think otherwise then you are for a reduced standard.
Now craft your witty response, I am sure it will be impeccable. Also It is not my life’s dream to be a reasonable let’s run poster. I simply don’t care. Your opinion of me means absolutely nothing .
We simply share a difference of opinion on a complex matter
Alan
Flagpole wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
You mean serve out his term and retire early - not removed from job. He may step down but they won’t remove him. Plus he is presumably a smart guy - he’s not going to lie, he’s going to dance around the truth under oath if he’s guilty. I could be wrong about that, given his record.
If he did this, he will have to lie at this point. They can and will ask very pointed questions that he will not be able to dance around. He has already gone all in on this. He will lie to his grave (if he did indeed do this).
Shut up, you Christian hating piece of trash.
Flagpole wrote:
Peter, Paul, & Mary wrote:
Will it be you getting the last word or one of your aliases.
Asking for a friend.
Ha! What alias?
It should read:
"Ha! Which alias."
Duane wrote:
Why do I think she is wrong? Because I do not think she is lying, just mistaken about who did it. Because per people who knew him then what she says about him being drunk and out of control is totally out of character. Because she cannot recall more details about that day, such as where it was and even what year it was.
Ok. Fair answer. Hopefully a hearing will clear it up.
Shut up democrat wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
If he did this, he will have to lie at this point. They can and will ask very pointed questions that he will not be able to dance around. He has already gone all in on this. He will lie to his grave (if he did indeed do this).
Shut up, you Christian hating piece of trash.
No thank you.
Duane wrote:
considered, fine. But without any proof, an unsubstantiated 36 year old allegation ruining someone's life. What he says should be considered as well. Find me the 4th person at this party that will say Kavanaugh was there, and I will give the accusation more credence. Kavanaugh says he was not even at this "party" of 4, whenever it occurred which the woman making the allegation that is was Kavanaugh does not recall.
When you are being considered for SCJ, that’s what you can expect to go through. He knew that and he surely knew that any skeletons in the closet may pop out. He will have his say and a decision will be made.
Grammar Police wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Ha! What alias?
It should read:
"Ha! Which alias."
Defend and I will consider.
Flagpole wrote:
Shut up democrat wrote:
Shut up, you Christian hating piece of trash.
No thank you.
Let's not forget that Kavanaugh is a legit bad pick for Supreme Court anyways, regardless of this accusation.
Runningart2004 wrote:
What is WRONG with you?!? wrote:
There you go again - creating an alternate reality and trying to pass it off as the real thing. HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED??? Nobody knows except for the 2 or 3 who were there. That is why they have scheduled hearings to try to get to the truth. And yet you repeatedly come on here and try to foist your completely uninformed opinion of what when on as fact. It is nothing of the sort.
So, what the fvck is wrong with you that you feel such a need to create this fiction? In all seriousness, what is in your own past that has turned you from being a reasonable poster into basically a liar? STOP MAKING SH!T UP AND TRYING TO HAVE THE NARRATIVE REVOLVE AROUND YOUR MADE UP SH!T!
Does the yelling in all caps make you feel better? It doesn’t make your opinion more valid than mine.
All I am doing is wrapping my head around a realistic scenario in which this sexual assault may or may not have happened. Because as I have said context matters.
Now let me reiterate my points for clarity:
1. This has nothing to do with the victim. This is nothing more than Democrats digging for dirt in an election year, looking for the moral high ground coming up on the 2018 midterms. It also gives political credibility and brownie points to potential 2020 candidates .
2. Now correct me if I’m wrong because I really don’t care about the details. This was a high school party. With a bunch drunk teenagers. A 17-year-old and his friend had a 15 yr old in a room. One or possibly both of these guys attempted to have sex with her. Now from what I’ve gathered this is the story is it not? This was 35 years ago. Drunk teenagers doing stupid stuff making stupid decisions.
Should we all be dragged over the coals for stuff we did or didn’t do 35 years ago in high school?
Now craft your witty response, I am sure it will be impeccable. Also It is not my life’s dream to be a reasonable let’s run poster. I simply don’t care. Your opinion of me means absolutely nothing .
We simply share a difference of opinion on a complex matter
Alan
Very cute. Wrong in almost every possible way. But cute nonetheless.
No you have not been just "wrapping my head around a realistic scenario in which this sexual assault may or may not have happened." You have been repeatedly saying what DID happen (oh sorry, did those all caps make you feel bad?): "So what I’m gathering from the story is that he groped her,"
"This has nothing to do with the victim. This is nothing more than Democrats digging for dirt in an election year" Bullsh!t!. Sure the Dems are playing politics. That does not change in any way the more important things going on:
1) This woman's right to be heard and taken seriously and not dismissed by BS comments like "So what I’m gathering from the story is that he groped her,"
2) Members of the SCOTUS absolutely should be held to an extremely high standard. The fact that this alleged event took place 35 years ago is irrelevant. By dismissing it as "in the past" you are very, very seriously lowering the standard for the SCOTUS.
"Now correct me if I’m wrong because I really don’t care about the details. This was a high school party. With a bunch drunk teenagers. A 17-year-old and his friend had a 15 yr old in a room. One or possibly both of these guys attempted to have sex with her. Now from what I’ve gathered this is the story is it not? "
You don't care about the details?!?!? WTF? And you are the one who keeps repeating that context matters? Well, the details provide the context. You say "One or possibly both of these guys attempted to have sex with her." You weren't there. She says that "One or possibly both of these guys attempted to rape her." She was there.
Please STFU. Your posts are absurd and obscene.
I ask again, what is it in your past that has brought out the "attempted rape is not biggy" here?
Flagpole wrote:
Towering Trump wrote:
I'm really stupid. Just answer the question.
I'm not in this to educate ALL the stupid people in the world. The answer is there. Not my fault that you are self-described stupid.
Towering Trump -
As you can see Flagpole has a conundrum. First, he has already gone all in on this thread that the meeting at Trump Tower proves collusion. However, now he's been confronted with his idol Bob Woodward saying that he never found any evidence of collusion after "looking hard" for it for two years.
Woodward must have had, at a minimum, the information about the meeting discussed by the media (Flagpole's level of knowledge) in addition to his own research. You would think that Woodward ("looking hard" for collusion) would pick the low hanging fruit of the Trump Tower meeting. Unless, of course, that he found that the meeting, in fact, did not meet the standards for collusion.
Then we have Lisa Page. She presents him with the same problem. An avid anti-Trumper who is charged with investigating whether Trump colluded with Russia before she was let go. Again, you would think that she would choose the low hanging fruit of the Trump Tower meeting to easily prove collusion. Yet, for some reason, she didn't.
No. You will not get an answer from Flagpole. It would force him to give the biggest mea culpa in history. We will be gracious to him though when he does.