What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (9 Viewers)

jonessed said:
One boy, one girl I believe.

I recall my high school parties.  If you told me the location and specifically who was there I would definitely remember.  Without a location it might be harder though.
Click to expand...
Holy crap.  I sure couldn't.  I remember events.  some places where they occured, some not.  I certainly cannot recall who was at what party.  I mean, I could guess as there was a list of usual suspects.  But to say I remember who was at a specific party?  Or if someone asked me if I was at a party with so and so back in highschool?  No chance I remember that.

 
zoonation said:
jonessed said:
One boy, one girl I believe.

I recall my high school parties.  If you told me the location and specifically who was there I would definitely remember.  Without a location it might be harder though.
Click to expand...
Holy crap.  I sure couldn't.  I remember events.  some places where they occured, some not.  I certainly cannot recall who was at what party.  I mean, I could guess as there was a list of usual suspects.  But to say I remember who was at a specific party?  Or if someone asked me if I was at a party with so and so back in highschool?  No chance I remember that.
Click to expand...
Me either, I might have a problem remember a party from 5 years ago lol

 
jonessed said:
I struggle with her not knowing the location or even being certain of the year.  I’m not convinced her memory after 35 years is all that reliable.
Click to expand...
Remembering who tried to rape you is on a little different stratosphere than remembering the exact time and place, dont you think?

I can remember the first person I had sex with. Even the first person I kissed. I cannot tell you the location or the month it happened. I am iffy on the year, but I probably could fathom a guess. The person though? Absolutely remember her name.

 
Trump just claimed, in a discussion of this nomination, that there were so many openings in the judiciary when he got into office because Obama got lazy and "just didn't do it."

If you want to know why so many people hate Trump with such passion, here's a pretty good example of it.  Not only does he tell obvious lies, but he lies in a manner that shifts blame from those who were obviously responsible for something (McConnell and the GOP, who blocked countless Obama nomination) to those who are blameless (Obama, who submitted nominations constantly).  And he does this with millions listening and in many cases giving him undeserved deference because of the office he holds. It's outrageous. I've never seen anything this blatant and shameless- sure, politicians shift blame and offer somewhat misleading comments all the time, but never at anything remotely approaching this level of brazen, absurd, surreal dishonesty.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
roadkill1292 said:
This is a really good question. Also, why do we call promiscuous girls "sluts," and make that a bad thing? 

Regardless of the outcome of this immediate case, it appears that the country is moving in a direction that is catching a certain deplorable, if you will, segment of it by surprise. Matters will be coming to a head over the remaining years of the current president and when the dust settles, maybe we'll all know better how to protect our women. I know I'm stating this a little awkwardly but you guys still questioning women's veracity about sexual assault are gonna feel like old white people down south screaming at the black kids coming to their school for the first time. Ashamed and resentful at history passing you by once again.
Click to expand...
Very well put, thank you.

 
roadkill1292 said:
This is a really good question. Also, why do we call promiscuous girls "sluts," and make that a bad thing? 

Regardless of the outcome of this immediate case, it appears that the country is moving in a direction that is catching a certain deplorable, if you will, segment of it by surprise. Matters will be coming to a head over the remaining years of the current president and when the dust settles, maybe we'll all know better how to protect our women. I know I'm stating this a little awkwardly but you guys still questioning women's veracity about sexual assault are gonna feel like old white people down south screaming at the black kids coming to their school for the first time. Ashamed and resentful at history passing you by once again.
Click to expand...
Trump is workin' em good and getting them that much closer to having his back when he shoots Avenatti on 5th Avenue...

 
jonessed said:
She was hired to poke holes in Ford’s story without attacking her.  Given the number of people they had to choose from I find it hard to believe they would have grabbed somebody bad at it.
Click to expand...
Well if that’s what they hired her for I doubt someone who has spent their life prosecuting sexual deviants and getting justice for victims is going to just assume the accused is the innocent party here. I think the republicans are so sure that this is some BS that they got someone who has all this experience and it could backfire in a big way. 

 
Snorkelson said:
If ford is telling the truth, I think the prosecutor they are bringing in could backfire. Reading a bit about her background and she seems like she has a lot of experience with prosecuting sex crimes and working with special victims. Maybe I’ve just watched too much SVU but I think it takes a special kind of person to do this job, and not the type that will attack a victim because the republicans want to bury the story. 
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter what happens tomorrow. Kavanaugh can struggle and look like a complete liar and they will still push him through if that’s the plan.

I’m not sure why they want to continue with him though. Do they think it will just die after he’s confirmed? If the Democrats win the House and/or Senate, they will open an investigation and attempt to remove him. If it succeeds, the best case scenario is that they get another conservative judge. Worst case, the Democrats ‘Garland’ the opening and nominate their own candidate in 2021.

The alternative is to dump Kavanaugh now and push someone else through now that has no chance of being removed down the line.

 
Snorkelson said:
If ford is telling the truth, I think the prosecutor they are bringing in could backfire. Reading a bit about her background and she seems like she has a lot of experience with prosecuting sex crimes and working with special victims. Maybe I’ve just watched too much SVU but I think it takes a special kind of person to do this job, and not the type that will attack a victim because the republicans want to bury the story. 
Click to expand...
Doesn't she work in the same county as Joe Arpaio? 

There's no way the GOP Senate hacks are bringing her in to be fair. She was hired to tear Ford apart and serve up softballs to Kavanaugh. 

 
Biff84 said:
It doesn’t matter what happens tomorrow. Kavanaugh can struggle and look like a complete liar and they will still push him through if that’s the plan.

I’m not sure why they want to continue with him though. Do they think it will just die after he’s confirmed? If the Democrats win the House and/or Senate, they will open an investigation and attempt to remove him. If it succeeds, the best case scenario is that they get another conservative judge. Worst case, the Democrats ‘Garland’ the opening and nominate their own candidate in 2021.

The alternative is to dump Kavanaugh now and push someone else through now that has no chance of being removed down the line.
Click to expand...
Maybe the goal is for the seat to remain open into the mid-terms. I don't know if they could have just not nominated someone leading up to the mid-terms, but maybe now they're thinking they can do a redux of the whole "supreme court" thing with the empty seat as motivation for conservative voters. If the seat gets filled before the mid terms, the "supreme court" consideration won't have quite as much urgency. I'm just trying to make sense of this from their perspective - seems like they should invoke an investigation if they're sure he's innocent or pull him and put up somebody cleaner if they really want to get this done ahead of the midterms.

 
Sinn Fein said:
What do you call promiscuous girls?  

I don't think I know any, so I don't call them anything.  But, what is your preferred term?
Click to expand...
I don’t really have one.  If I had to come up with something as a descriptor it would probably be something like, “she has an active sex life”.

 
dawgtrails said:
Remembering who tried to rape you is on a little different stratosphere than remembering the exact time and place, dont you think?

I can remember the first person I had sex with. Even the first person I kissed. I cannot tell you the location or the month it happened. I am iffy on the year, but I probably could fathom a guess. The person though? Absolutely remember her name.
Click to expand...
I knew those people well and could tell you the time, place, and name (first name anyway).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Trump just claimed, in a discussion of this nomination, that there were so many openings in the judiciary when he got into office because Obama got lazy and "just didn't do it."

If you want to know why so many people hate Trump with such passion, here's a pretty good example of it.  Not only does he tell obvious lies, but he lies in a manner that shifts blame from those who were obviously responsible for something (McConnell and the GOP, who blocked countless Obama nomination) to those who are blameless (Obama, who submitted nominations constantly).  And he does this with millions listening and in many cases giving him undeserved deference because of the office he holds. It's outrageous. I've never seen anything this blatant and shameless- sure, politicians shift blame and offer somewhat misleading comments all the time, but never at anything remotely approaching this level of brazen, absurd, surreal dishonesty.
Click to expand...
It's pure pandering to the base. They feel like they've been left behind in the courts as the gays have achieved marriage equality, minorities have gained civil rights, and women have had the freedom to make their own healthcare decisions. Packing the courts is their path to reverting us back to "the good old days." Throw in "the lazy black guy" as the scapegoat and it's pure gold, Jerry!

 
TobiasFunke said:
Trump just claimed, in a discussion of this nomination, that there were so many openings in the judiciary when he got into office because Obama got lazy and "just didn't do it."

If you want to know why so many people hate Trump with such passion, here's a pretty good example of it.  Not only does he tell obvious lies, but he lies in a manner that shifts blame from those who were obviously responsible for something (McConnell and the GOP, who blocked countless Obama nomination) to those who are blameless (Obama, who submitted nominations constantly).  And he does this with millions listening and in many cases giving him undeserved deference because of the office he holds. It's outrageous. I've never seen anything this blatant and shameless- sure, politicians shift blame and offer somewhat misleading comments all the time, but never at anything remotely approaching this level of brazen, absurd, surreal dishonesty.
Click to expand...
Exactly (setting aside that he's a filthy human being on several levels other than the lying). It infuriates me because ultimately there is nothing one can do when fundamental shared reality is ignored.

 
Gachi said:
I don’t know how you guys can listen to him speak for more than a couple minutes. 

Every time I see him on TV I turn the channel. I don’t need any reminders that he’s President. 
Click to expand...
Same here. I have to change the channel. Usually when watching the evening news. He repulses me. Then again, I have to change the channel when they air interviews with Trumpies too. Too discouraging.

 
Trump just claimed that he's heard Kavanaugh's name for 10 years. And people were always telling him that Kavanaugh should be on the S.Ct. For 10 years they've been telling him this.

What a bunch of horse####. There is a 0% chance he knew who Bret Kavanaugh was 3 months ago.

 
whoknew said:
Trump just claimed that he's heard Kavanaugh's name for 10 years. And people were always telling him that Kavanaugh should be on the S.Ct. For 10 years they've been telling him this.

What a bunch of horse####. There is a 0% chance he knew who Bret Kavanaugh was 3 months ago.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...  people were telling him.  Is this a change in stance from the orange one?  Its never his fault.

 
"I could pick five other people" and Trump says the same thing would happen to them with similar false charges as Kavanaugh.

 
"Always I have heard it is innocent until proven guilty"

Falsely conflating the Kavanaugh nomination to a criminal trial, which is it not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus said:
Maybe the goal is for the seat to remain open into the mid-terms. I don't know if they could have just not nominated someone leading up to the mid-terms, but maybe now they're thinking they can do a redux of the whole "supreme court" thing with the empty seat as motivation for conservative voters. If the seat gets filled before the mid terms, the "supreme court" consideration won't have quite as much urgency. I'm just trying to make sense of this from their perspective - seems like they should invoke an investigation if they're sure he's innocent or pull him and put up somebody cleaner if they really want to get this done ahead of the midterms.
Click to expand...
Trump wanted Kavanaugh to cover in case he gets indicted. 

Republicans can't say no because they're all in on the crazy Trump agenda and all his voters.

Trump won't back down because it would be seen as a loss, and he's too stubborn to do that. 

 
timschochet said:
She kept asking why they wouldn’t subpoena Mark Judge, and McConnell kept trying to reassure her that it was unnecessary, that they had “reached out to him”. 
Click to expand...
Per Ford he is allegedly an eyewitness to what happened. His testimony under oath needs to be heard to judge his credibility along with Ford and Kavanaugh.

 
timschochet said:
She kept asking why they wouldn’t subpoena Mark Judge, and McConnell kept trying to reassure her that it was unnecessary, that they had “reached out to him”. 
Click to expand...
:lol:

Thats why his attorney told him to get out of town, and hole up in Rehoboth - which incidentally has a starring role in Kavanaugh's calendar...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court
3 4 5
Replies
242
Views
7K
John123
J
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 10 (members: 0, guests: 10)
Top