Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And which party used the "nuclear option" concerning the confirmation of SCOTUS nominees, which now means the Republicans get to use it at the current time?
The facts that it is a responsibility of the Congress and that there is a stated and codified process for doing so confers that it is a "duty." What is dubious however is your statement "Of course, the Senate arguably gave its advice and consent, which was no nominees until after the presidential election."
.
The facts that it is a responsibility of the Congress and that there is a stated and codified process for doing so confers that it is a "duty."
What is dubious however is your statement "Of course, the Senate arguably gave its advice and consent, which was no nominees until after the presidential election."
Nice civics lesson by the way. You offered no cogent argument for your position but it was interesting to read your thoughts
Admittedly "often" is a subjective word. Perhaps I might have used "a number of?"
You and I clearly have different points of view. You deal and have dealt with young women strong enough to think relatively clearly and although frightened involve law enforcement. My experience has been mostly with young women that did not have that strength or those decision making skills. And I dare say I have probably (based upon your stated 13 years) dealt with at least as many of these victims and probably more.
Indeed "get away" but for young women who are not clear headed running to the bathroom is getting away, at least temporarily.
I'm sure this is true, considering that you qualified your statement with the word "many."
Why not? If her statement is true then she effectively separated herself from her assailant.
I've know too many young women who have done a similar thing to think it should create doubt.
Considering that the boys allegedly were in the same room as her and that they, again allegedly, were trying to keep her screams from being heard by people outside the room it is entirely possible she could hear them laughing.
Traumatized victims often forget some matters of fact. Do you claim that is not true?
I, having watched their testimonies am in the odd position that I believe that they both believe they are telling the truth. I'm not sure there is a liar here as much as there is a memory issue involved. If she is a traumatized victim memory issues are possible, the same can be said of an 18 year old who drank heavily.
And I dare say I have probably (based upon your stated 13 years) dealt with at least as many of these victims and probably more.
Indeed "get away" but for young women who are not clear headed running to the bathroom is getting away, at least temporarily.
Considering that the boys allegedly were in the same room as her and that they, again allegedly, were trying to keep her screams from being heard by people outside the room it is entirely possible she could hear them laughing.
I, having watched their testimonies am in the odd position that I believe that they both believe they are telling the truth. I'm not sure there is a liar here
If I remember correctly it is on page 2 of the synopsis that reports 1900 erroneous convictions of only 3 specific crimes. Perhaps you bristle at the word "games." Fair enough, the post I was responding to was referring to skillful prosecutors and their ability to bring forth truth. I will amend my comment to include "skill" instead of "games."
American conservatives almost universally regard Kavanaugh's animated testimony as a watershed moment. We have all seen our conservative ideas being maligned as bigotry, as racism and sexism and as evil, just like Kavanagh had been smeared from long before the sexual allegations came up. He spoke for all conservatives in his firing back with all barrels against the smears and the mindless hatred of the Democratic left. He said what we all felt.
Thoroughly decent people who have thusly been maligned by Democratic lies from the Senate, such as Mitt Romney having the snivelling Harry Reid as someone who does not pay taxes, ended up coming off as weak for bending over and taking, much like Bush took it over and over again without saying anything.
Trump does not take it like that, but people trying to leave decent, conservative lives really do not find their voice in Trump, a man who boasts of his indecency.
But Kavanaugh spoke for conservatives everywhere in his scathing review of leftist politics and the scurrilous low life who have been assassinating his character from the safety of their Senate chairs. He called them out for the slimy, immoral greaseballs that they so shamelessly show themselves to be, time and time and time again.
Win or lose, this was an historic moment for conservatives. He spoke for himself well, and in doing so, he spoke for all of us.
Of course, those on the left will disagree. But just because nobody likes to be exposed as the low life that they are, it does not make it any less true.
Jews sometimes speak of their Matza moment. In the long history of European maligning of Jewish character, it was often very easy for a Jew not of the dominant country to begin to believe the slurs being made against his kind. But when the slurs came to evolve kidnapping and bleeding out Christian children for blood to use in their matzas, it all became too preposterous.
Kavanagh being the leader of a rape gang is that kind of Matza moment.
Leftists loathe conservatives enough to say anything about us, without even caring if there is a smidgen of truth to the claim. We get that.
But the matza moment is recognizing that their hate and their spite is on their own heads, and speaks nothing of who a conservative is.
You know what would be preferable? If you spared me and everyone else your guessing game, and your attempt to vouch for your point of view.
Spare me the speculative nonsense. I’m not impressed with your demonstrated proficiency of making a bad argument of speculation.
I couldn’t care less about how well you can vouch for yourself. Oh, I’m so convinced you are right with your compelling, no, ineluctable argument based on speculation and self vouching. Let me roll out the red carpet of baloney for you.
In isolation, this makes sense but this conduct must be analyzed in relation to the entire incident. She flees to the bathroom, to get away from her assailant. She’s there for some unknown amount of time (the amount of time is relevant, something needed to be known). While in the bathroom, seeking refuge from her attacker, she then decides at some point to exit her place of relative safety and go downstairs, into a room her assailant is located, and walk past him to exit the house. That’s odd. I’ve never had ANY victim behave remotely close to that specific act and decision by Ms. Ford.
In addition, she knows she has one other friend in the home, other people are in the house, located downstairs, so why not immediately flee downstairs to where several people are located? That’s odd.
Over music turned up loud enough to try and down out her screams or any scream by her? That’s questionable.
I venture no opinion as to whether there is a liar. For me there are too many unanswered questions regarding some of the details of Ms. Ford’s account, the statement by Judge he has never seen Kavanaugh behave in the manner described, Ms. Ford’s friends not recalling ever seeing Kavanaugh at a party or at a party they went to with Ms. Ford, leads me to conclude her accusation isn’t strong enough to keep Kavanaugh off the bench.
There is no guess here, simply pointing out that I used a subjective word to make a point which is not an effective tool.You know what would be preferable? If you spared me and everyone else your guessing game, and your attempt to vouch for your point of view.
Spare me the speculative nonsense. I’m not impressed with your demonstrated proficiency of making a bad argument of speculation.
I couldn’t care less about how well you can vouch for yourself. Oh, I’m so convinced you are right with your compelling, no, ineluctable argument based on speculation and self vouching. Let me roll out the red carpet of baloney for you.
She flees to the bathroom, to get away from her assailant. She’s there for some unknown amount of time (the amount of time is relevant, something needed to be known).
While in the bathroom, seeking refuge from her attacker, she then decides at some point to exit her place of relative safety and go downstairs, into a room her assailant is located, and walk past him to exit the house.
That’s odd. I’ve never had ANY victim behave remotely close to that specific act and decision by Ms. Ford.
Over music turned up loud enough to try and down out her screams or any scream by her? That’s questionable.
For me there are too many unanswered questions regarding some of the details of Ms. Ford’s account,
the statement by Judge he has never seen Kavanaugh behave in the manner described,
Ms. Ford’s friends not recalling ever seeing Kavanaugh at a party or at a party they went to with Ms. Ford,
leads me to conclude her accusation isn’t strong enough to keep Kavanaugh off the bench.
I wasn't attempting to smear prosecutors. I simply was pointing out that skillful prosecutors don't always bring forth the truth as the poster I was responding to implied. I believe earlier in this thread or perhaps another like it I stated that I believe most prosecutors (and judges for that matter) to be honest ethical actors in the justice system. I am clearly paraphrasing.Edifying. Now, tell me how those numbers reflect poorly on prosecutors?
There is no guess here, simply pointing out that I used a subjective word to make a point which is not an effective tool.
Ok, then instead of being kind and giving you the benefit of the doubt I'll make my point more clear and concise, considering my experience there is no question that I have far more experience dealing one on one with victims of sexual assault than you.
Agreed, the amount of time there would give us a better understanding of her actual state of mind.
As I understand it was the only means of egress she was aware of.
That belies your stated experience. Many of us who have worked with sexual assault victims have dealt with women who have behaved quite similarly.
Agreed questionable, not however impossible.
Ok, your opinion is noted.
Judge was in his own words often drunk to the point of blacking out. Additionally considering his own statements I do not find him credible.
2 friends did say that. These friends however are not omniscient, their memories are also 36 years removed. Is that not the point conservatives are making; that that length of time is making Ford's memories unreliable?
And again your opinion is noted.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that I think she is telling the truth and is accurate in her accusations. While I do believe her to be honest, as in I believe she believes what she is reporting, I'm not convinced she is necessarily accurate in her accusations.
Ok, then instead of being kind and giving you the benefit of the doubt I'll make my point more clear and concise, considering my experience there is no question that I have far more experience dealing one on one with victims of sexual assault than you.
That belies your stated experience. Many of us who have worked with sexual assault victims have dealt with women who have behaved quite similarly.
These friends however are not omniscient, their memories are also 36 years removed. Is that not the point conservatives are making
These friends however are not omniscient, their memories are also 36 years removed.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that I think she is telling the truth
I'm not convinced she is necessarily accurate in her accusations
Yeah, if his career depended on it, you might be right. I'd say that anyone who is unjustly accused of something like that would be wont to be that heated about his reputation, especially when there's nothing left if he's not confirmed. Can't teach anymore, can't be a judge anymore, life, finished.I suppose it's too much to expect a man to keep his cool in front of the Senate if your career depends on it.
Yeah, would be nice if there were some details. Kav kept great records of where he was and what he was doing, when and where.With a hand over her mouth to keep her from screaming, perhaps? Perhaps he's learned a few lessons from his youth.
I wasn't attempting to smear prosecutors. I simply was pointing out that skillful prosecutors don't always bring forth the truth as the poster I was responding to implied. I believe earlier in this thread or perhaps another like it I stated that I believe most prosecutors (and judges for that matter) to be honest ethical actors in the justice system. I am clearly paraphrasing.
I applaud him for his opening remarks. Beautifully done, perfect.In any event, we now see Kavanaugh under pressure -- a screeching, sniveling wreck.
And that was as an adult and (presumably) sober. That's as good as he gets.
To the bold, that has never, in the history of the world, happened.In a court of law. This is a job interview. The point is to hire someone without baggage.
But at least we've seen how quickly Kavanaugh comes unglued under pressure... a pity some boys are just so emotional when things don't go their way.
No, plenty of them, including a few on the Judiciary Committee stage left, have participated in attempted rape.They leaked it on purpose?
Of course... it's the party line.
Could they have cloned her in a lab using the DNA of Biblical Jezebel?
Not for nothing, but both those actions were done by the political party you're defending.
Except attempted rape?
God needs no nomination. He already is the Supreme Everything.Fine -- let's withdraw Kavanaugh and nominate God for SCOTUS.
It's great how the Democrats smash the rules when they want to get something done, yet, when the same rules are applied the other way, they scream bloody murder about it.The Republicans did.
The Dems used the "nuclear option" to overcome Republican obstructionism of federal judges and cabinet members, not SCOTUS. It was something the Republicans threatened back in 2003 but when they increased their numbers in 2004, they didn't do it. Reid pulled the trigger in a limited way (federal judges and cabinet members) in 2013.
It was the Republicans who extended it to SCOTUS picks once Trump was elected.
And you know this....how?He also lied, repeatedly, under oath. I'm not talking about in relation to his memory about Dr. Ford, i'm talking about how he describes what his yearbook entries mean. Several clear lies among those answers.
And you know this....how?
Convoluted.It was fairly obvious, but this article breaks it down fairly well.
How We Know Kavanaugh Is Lying | Current Affairs
Convoluted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?