TobiasFunke

Members
  • Content count

    39,260
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    27

TobiasFunke last won the day on September 4

TobiasFunke had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

23,176 Excellent

About TobiasFunke

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

17,202 profile views
  1. Because the accuser requested anonymity. I have no idea what you mean by the second bolded. If Kavanaugh is more believable and he's confirmed that doesn't make the accusation false. Punishing people for making sexual assault accusations they can't prove encourages sexual assault and discourages victims from speaking out against their accusers. Is that what you want to do? And in any event how do you not see that she's already paying an enormous price even if the accusations are true? Conservatives are trashing her in advance, they're digging through old records to find foreclosures and lying about her students trashing her on the internet and this will no doubt continue for the next week and will haunt her for the rest of her life.
  2. Yeah, God forbid we live in a world where someone like Hillary Clinton can be felled by unproven accusations and innuendo The people who didn't just abide birtherism but helped elect its chief proponent President are suddenly concerned about the impact of unfounded allegations on politics? What a joke.
  3. I find it interesting that you responded to this post but ignored the one where I pointed out that Ford called the Washington Post tip line about Kavanaugh in early July, thus blowing up your whole "last minute hail mary/Dem conspiracy" narrative out of the water. Care to address that post too? Or are you just selectively replying to the ones that don't show you to be lying so you can continue lying? Anyway, the Kavanaugh email (which despite your weird twitter nonsense is part of the public record and everyone has seen it- it's the same one where he talks about confidentiality with spouses) shows a 36 year old Kavanaugh apparently getting aggressive while blackout drunk to the point that he felt the need to apologize for it even though he didn't remember exactly what happened. By itself it's not damning by any stretch and I didn't say it was. But if you don't see the connection, and the possibility that it will come up in Monday's hearing, I don't know what to tell you.
  4. In this email Kavanaugh apologizes to friends for "growing aggressive after blowing yet another game of dice," then says he doesn't recall the incident just a couple days later, which sure makes it sound like he got overly aggressive while blackout drunk (unless someone has another explanation as to why he wouldn't be able to remember what he did a couple days earlier).
  5. It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that she wrote the letter months ago and also contacted the Washington Post in early July, before Kavanaugh was even the nominee. And yet you continue to lie about this. It's one thing to attack the character of a woman who may have been the victim of sexual assault. It's another to do it with obvious, demonstrable lies. The rules of the forum prevent me from accurately describing the sort of person who would stoop to that level.
  6. No, because the nomination hasn't been torpedoed only because of the accusation, nor would it be even at this stage. It would be torpedoed based on an accusation backed by therapist's records, levied against a man whose far right political views and history as a political operative made him very controversial to begin with (he was already polling at 38%/39% prior to any of this), who already lied during his testimony about his work as a political operative, who refused to commit to recusing himself in matters involving Trump despite the judicial code of ethics indicating he should do so, and who was nominated by a man who himself has been accused of sexual misconduct by many women. I am pretty confident that if you removed all of those things the nomination would go through if there was nothing further on the allegation and it was merely a he said/she said from 35 years ago. Every nomination is different. Times change, people are different, fact patterns are different.
  7. This is your moment. Like @metoo last year, but way funnier.
  8. Sure, but the description of the president's member was that it was "like the mushroom character in Mario Kart." I feel like that could go either way. "Yeti pubes," on the other hand, is crystal clear.
  9. If you're interested in some schadenfreude he is currently corncobbing like crazy on twitter.
  10. How so? He said he's 100% confident it didn't happen. If he's not actually 100% confident it didn't happen, you don't think lying about a sexual assault accusation and letting people do what they have been and will continue to do to his accuser is disqualifying? This isn't a criminal trial. He's not entitled to the "kitchen sink" defense strategy in the name of due process and zealous advocacy. We're talking about one of nine seats on the Supreme Court, a lifetime appointment. The standards should be just a wee bit higher than those we employ when imprisonment is on the line.
  11. I feel like we need to bring in @bradyfan for some expert analysis here, based on his avatar. Is that the mushroom to which Ms, Daniels is referring, or did she mean this guy? It's an important distinction.
  12. "Toad" and "Mario Kart" both trending on twitter. God bless America.
  13. Are people really too obsessed with the Kavanaugh thing and the declassification of the FISA docs to stop in here and make jokes about the Toad from Mario Kart thing? A low point for the FFA politics thread.
  14. Yeah, absolutely. But if the testimony reveals any inconsistency or uncertainty at all he should be gone. Not because of what he did when he was 17, but because of what he did when he was 53.
  15. Yeah, I don't understand why people seem not to be grasping this. It's not just about what he did as a 17 year old. If this happened- hell, even if he doesn't know for sure if it happened or not, after saying with 100% certainty that it didnt- that means he (1) lied to the American people as a 53 year old man looking for serve on their Supreme Court, and (2) stood by as an army of conservative politicians and media types and their online army attacked an innocent woman on his behalf, and by extension discouraged other sexual assault victims from speaking out. If he has anything less than 100% crystal clear recollection that this could not have possibly happened, he's in the wrong.