Hoo-Haa wrote:
Noticer of JaminLoper wrote:
Please tell us the thousands of handle you have used, Rigged by JaminLoper, on just this thread.
Hi Flagpole!
HI JaminLoper! Not working again, as usual.
PS. I am not you much hated Flagpole.
Hoo-Haa wrote:
Noticer of JaminLoper wrote:
Please tell us the thousands of handle you have used, Rigged by JaminLoper, on just this thread.
Hi Flagpole!
HI JaminLoper! Not working again, as usual.
PS. I am not you much hated Flagpole.
Duane wrote:
If he backs off from the specific denials he has already gone pubic with he is toast. He won't. No dancing. You may choose not to believe him. But then it would come down to "he said, she said". Is that the standard for being disqualified for a job, including the Supreme Court? If so, you can block anyone you like by accusing them of doing something they can't prove they did not do.
Here is a tough one that Kavanaugh has to dance around during his hearing.
How is it that Kavanaugh claimed he was not at "that" party with the accuser when the accuser has made absolutely no mention of which party the abuse occurred at?
Noticer of JaminLoper wrote:
Hoo-Haa wrote:
Hi Flagpole!
HI JaminLoper! Not working again, as usual.
PS. I am not you much hated Flagpole.
What's up Flagpole.
About that party wrote:
Duane wrote:
If he backs off from the specific denials he has already gone pubic with he is toast. He won't. No dancing. You may choose not to believe him. But then it would come down to "he said, she said". Is that the standard for being disqualified for a job, including the Supreme Court? If so, you can block anyone you like by accusing them of doing something they can't prove they did not do.
Here is a tough one that Kavanaugh has to dance around during his hearing.
How is it that Kavanaugh claimed he was not at "that" party with the accuser when the accuser has made absolutely no mention of which party the abuse occurred at?
Yeah wow you really got him there! Iron clad reasoning
About that party wrote:
Duane wrote:
If he backs off from the specific denials he has already gone pubic with he is toast. He won't. No dancing. You may choose not to believe him. But then it would come down to "he said, she said". Is that the standard for being disqualified for a job, including the Supreme Court? If so, you can block anyone you like by accusing them of doing something they can't prove they did not do.
Here is a tough one that Kavanaugh has to dance around during his hearing.
How is it that Kavanaugh claimed he was not at "that" party with the accuser when the accuser has made absolutely no mention of which party the abuse occurred at?
On Faux News one of Kavanaugh's supporters, Meghan McCaleb, had this to say about Kavanaugh from their high schools daze [sic].
-- She was around him when he was drinking many times.
-- I have never seen him stumbling drunk, ever.
So, Kavanaugh's friend has confirmed he was was an underage drunk, just not the stumbling kind. The stumbling kind would never be able to turn up the music, guide an underage girl up a set of stairs, lock the door, group and try to grind away.
About that party wrote:
Duane wrote:
If he backs off from the specific denials he has already gone pubic with he is toast. He won't. No dancing. You may choose not to believe him. But then it would come down to "he said, she said". Is that the standard for being disqualified for a job, including the Supreme Court? If so, you can block anyone you like by accusing them of doing something they can't prove they did not do.
Here is a tough one that Kavanaugh has to dance around during his hearing.
How is it that Kavanaugh claimed he was not at "that" party with the accuser when the accuser has made absolutely no mention of which party the abuse occurred at?
Perhaps he was never at a party where she attended? Or never been at a party where she was present and there were four other boys?
Racket wrote:
About that party wrote:
Here is a tough one that Kavanaugh has to dance around during his hearing.
How is it that Kavanaugh claimed he was not at "that" party with the accuser when the accuser has made absolutely no mention of which party the abuse occurred at?
Yeah wow you really got him there! Iron clad reasoning
Wow, what a defense you have provided.
Trumpettes are simply NOT Americans!
Not There wrote:
About that party wrote:
Here is a tough one that Kavanaugh has to dance around during his hearing.
How is it that Kavanaugh claimed he was not at "that" party with the accuser when the accuser has made absolutely no mention of which party the abuse occurred at?
Perhaps he was never at a party where she attended? Or never been at a party where she was present and there were four other boys?
Kavanaugh obviously remembers the specific party his groping did not occur at.
PS. The claim from Fox and Breitbart is that there were FOUR people at the party. You are claiming it was FOUR males (HS seniors) plus ONE female (under the age of consent of age ). Good work on you part.
Kavanaugh the teenage drunk wrote:
On Faux News one of Kavanaugh's supporters, Meghan McCaleb, had this to say about Kavanaugh from their high schools daze [sic].
-- She was around him when he was drinking many times.
-- I have never seen him stumbling drunk, ever.
So, Kavanaugh's friend has confirmed he was was an underage drunk, just not the stumbling kind. The stumbling kind would never be able to turn up the music, guide an underage girl up a set of stairs, lock the door, group and try to grind away.
Folks should really let go of this "underage drunk" nonsense. The vast majority of people drink and even get drunk prior to being of legal age.
There is an issue of alleged sexual assault here. This should be taken very seriously.
The issue of being drunk while under the legal drinking age is of zero importance.
PIO! wrote:
Kavanaugh the teenage drunk wrote:
On Faux News one of Kavanaugh's supporters, Meghan McCaleb, had this to say about Kavanaugh from their high schools daze [sic].
-- She was around him when he was drinking many times.
-- I have never seen him stumbling drunk, ever.
So, Kavanaugh's friend has confirmed he was was an underage drunk, just not the stumbling kind. The stumbling kind would never be able to turn up the music, guide an underage girl up a set of stairs, lock the door, group and try to grind away.
Folks should really let go of this "underage drunk" nonsense. The vast majority of people drink and even get drunk prior to being of legal age.
There is an issue of alleged sexual assault here. This should be taken very seriously.
The issue of being drunk while under the legal drinking age is of zero importance.
^ I DID NOT post this. Name thieves are scum.
I'm thinking that she was having marital problems that were mostly her fault. In therapy, she decided to make up a story so she could place blame somewhere else. In therapy she says she was assaulted at a a party in high school and this has led to her marital issues. She never named anyone in therapy. When her husband pressed her on it later she choose a public figure like Kavanaugh since she may have been at a party with him at some point in her youth and her husband could never go after someone so powerful as a federal judge. Plus, it sounds better than just some joe-blow assaulted her. Once BK was nominated, her husband pressured her to come forward since it was now higher stakes. She could not take her story back and had to go all-in.
Mine story is just as good as anyone else's on this thread, but mine's more plausible.
Con-numb-drum wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
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.
What was discussed in the Don Jr meeting is not known, so it isn't proof of collusion, but it shows a willingness by the campaign to collude. This is compounded by Junior's idiotic over-the -top enthusiasm and it having been attended by the campaign manager. A competently managed campaign would notified the FBI about the contact.
PIO! wrote:
^ I DID NOT post this. Name thieves are scum.
Register your username, there's a simple fix for that.
My Best Guess wrote:
Mine story is NOT VERY GOOD on this thread, AND MINE IS IMplausible.
^ Corrected story
JaminLoper wrote:
PIO! wrote:
^ I DID NOT post this. Name thieves are scum.
Register your username, there's a simple fix for that. Not that I use it most of the time. I prefer stealing names.
simple fix for this wrote:
PIO! wrote:
^ I DID NOT post this. Name thieves are scum.
Register your username, there's a simple fix for that.
An even easier fix is to recognize the obvious. The person to whom you are responding is Jaminloper.
Here's the hint for you: Whenever the original post is reasonable it is the respondent who is the imposter. 100% reliable.
The immediate defensive reaction from the right feeds right into their male anxiety target strategy. It is blowing up bigly in their faces, a term has been coined “himpathy”. Women are going to wreck the GOP’s election results.
My Best Guess wrote:
I'm thinking that she was having marital problems that were mostly her fault. In therapy, she decided to make up a story so she could place blame somewhere else. In therapy she says she was assaulted at a a party in high school and this has led to her marital issues. She never named anyone in therapy. When her husband pressed her on it later she choose a public figure like Kavanaugh since she may have been at a party with him at some point in her youth and her husband could never go after someone so powerful as a federal judge. Plus, it sounds better than just some joe-blow assaulted her. Once BK was nominated, her husband pressured her to come forward since it was now higher stakes. She could not take her story back and had to go all-in.
Mine story is just as good as anyone else's on this thread, but mine's more plausible.
Your theory is based on your mind reading ability. If she is such a nut, how did she ever become a professor?
The reality is she has no reason to lie and Kavanaugh is strongly motivated to do so. She is no Paula Jones. The story that she confused him with a different guy is ridiculous.
However, it is up to the Senate to make judgements about credibility and relevance.
Trollminator wrote:
The immediate defensive reaction from the right feeds right into their male anxiety target strategy. It is blowing up bigly in their faces, a term has been coined “himpathy”. Women are going to wreck the GOP’s election results.
Trump's strategy appears to be:
-- Get McConnell to delay a vote on Kavanaugh until a week or so before the election
-- Trump rides to the rescue and removes Kavanaugh from consideration for the SCOTUS before a vote can be taken
-- Trump and the GOP claim that removing Kavanaugh proves without a doubt that they are the party of pro-women's rights
-- Trump and the GOP pray that conservative women will vote in droves for them, and that women who are swing votes will flock to their side.