Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett

Recommended Posts

Just now, IvanKaramazov said:

The allegation is that Kavanaugh tried to force himself on somebody, not that he actually raped anybody.

Can you explain the difference to me? I’m not getting it. Are you suggesting it’s OK because he tried but did not succeed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TobiasFunke said:

You investigate its veracity and proceed accordingly. If the investigation stalls because the alleged victim is unwilling to testify, there's no corroborating evidence and the accused denies the charges under oath, so be it.  But what the hell does "he didn't rape me!"  have to do with anything, ever?  I'm pretty sure I could find 65 people who knew Jeffrey Dahmer that weren't killed and eaten by him.

These women said "he didnt rape me"? I thought it said he treated women with respect. Those things are different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IvanKaramazov said:

The allegation is that Kavanaugh tried to force himself on somebody, not that he actually raped anybody.

Hey Ivan, I gotta add, this post is unlike you and comes off as really bad. Maybe I am misreading it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

Can you explain the difference to me? I’m not getting it. Are you suggesting it’s OK because he tried but did not succeed? 

Yes, obviously my position is that attempting to rape somebody is okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Can you explain the difference to me? I’m not getting it. Are you suggesting it’s OK because he tried but did not succeed? 

Same logic used regarding the Trump Tower meeting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IvanKaramazov said:

Yes, obviously my position is that attempting to rape somebody is okay.

I don’t understand your point in attempting to make that distinction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently this woman contacted her Representative awhile back via letter. The Representative forwarded it to Feinstein, who has had it since July and did nothing with it due to the woman not wanting her name public. Other Democrats on the committee felt she was holding back information from them through and after the hearings, asked for it, and she gave it to the FBI. Democrats on the committee wanted information from her on what it was and she finally briefed them.

That committee needs younger leadership from each party. Grassley and Feinstein are old and slow and both remind me of Grandfather Clock on Captain Kangaroo.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

I don’t understand your point in attempting to make that distinction. 

Is there a legal distinction between attempted rape and rape?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IvanKaramazov said:

Is there a legal distinction between attempted rape and rape?

There probably is. I don’t know. Why is this important for the purposes of our discussion? How does it change anything? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

So what are you suggesting? We don’t try to investigate at all? Just move to a vote? 

A 5 minute investigation. 

Do you have this incident recorded? Did you report it to the police when it happened? Was anybody else in the room that will corroborate your story? If the answer to these three questions is no, which it likely is, then the response should be, Ok, we are done here.  

There is literally no other way to corroborate a 35 year old story and be able to come to a reasonable conclusion. Having a long drawn out public investigation gives the media an excuse for clickbait headlines and serves as a guilt sentence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, parasaurolophus said:

These women said "he didnt rape me"? I thought it said he treated women with respect. Those things are different. 

Fair enough, but the argument is the same. Treating some or even most of the women in your life with respect is nice but it is not in any way exonerating, and the implication that it somehow discredits a sexual assault accusation is outdated and ugly. Imagine what all the women out there who have been sexually assaulted by respected authority figures must feel like hearing that line of defense. It just encourages them to keep quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

You investigate its veracity and proceed accordingly. If the investigation stalls because the alleged victim is unwilling to testify, there's no corroborating evidence and the accused denies the charges under oath, so be it.  But what the hell does "he didn't rape me!"  have to do with anything, ever?  I'm pretty sure I could find 65 people who knew Jeffrey Dahmer that weren't killed and eaten by him.

Imagine if something like this had surfaced during the Merrick Garland confirmation hearings.  “If Garland wants to be on the Supreme Court, don’t you think he could find more than just 65 women who say he treated them with respect?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fatness said:

Apparently this woman contacted her Representative awhile back via letter. The Representative forwarded it to Feinstein, who has had it since July and did nothing with it due to the woman not wanting her name public. Other Democrats on the committee felt she was holding back information from them through and after the hearings, asked for it, and she gave it to the FBI. Democrats on the committee wanted information from her on what it was and she finally briefed them.

That committee needs younger leadership from each party. Grassley and Feinstein are old and slow and both remind me of Grandfather Clock on Captain Kangaroo.

I know this isn't your intent, but the old and slow and having it since july comments sound funny to me together. Like she moves soooooo sloooooow that it took her two months just to be able to read some emails and move forward with this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, parasaurolophus said:

A 5 minute investigation. 

Do you have this incident recorded? Did you report it to the police when it happened? Was anybody else in the room that will corroborate your story? If the answer to these three questions is no, which it likely is, then the response should be, Ok, we are done here.  

There is literally no other way to corroborate a 35 year old story and be able to come to a reasonable conclusion. Having a long drawn out public investigation gives the media an excuse for clickbait headlines and serves as a guilt sentence. 

There’s one question you’re missing: “Did you tell anyone at the time or shortly after it occurred?” If the answer is no, then I would agree that would end the investigation. But of the incident really did occur then the answer is almost certainly yes, at which point you have to interview whoever she told as well. And so forth. 

Either way, this will take a lot longer than 5 minutes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

There’s one question you’re missing: “Did you tell anyone at the time or shortly after it occurred?” 

FWIW, I agree that this is highly relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TobiasFunke said:

Fair enough, but the argument is the same. Treating some or even most of the women in your life with respect is nice but it is not in any way exonerating, and the implication that it somehow discredits a sexual assault accusation is outdated and ugly. Imagine what all the women out there who have been sexually assaulted by respected authority figures must feel like hearing that line of defense. It just encourages them to keep quiet.

I am not saying this is some end all be all, but I think when dealing with an abstract issue from long ago getting statements from women that were in the same high school class to say he treated women with respect isn't some ugly tactic. It is basically a nothingburger(pretty sure that is the first time I have used that term). It isnt some Trump card (i kid, i kid) that he is innocent, but it certainly isn't an ugly tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

There’s one question you’re missing: “Did you tell anyone at the time or shortly after it occurred?” If the answer is no, then I would agree that would end the investigation. But of the incident really did occur then the answer is almost certainly yes, at which point you have to interview whoever she told as well. And so forth. 

Either way, this will take a lot longer than 5 minutes. 

I know this has become "proof" in the #metoo era, but it shouldnt be. 

"Hey sally remember when I called you 35 years ago and I told you about my interaction with harry at that party?" 

Coerced memories are a real thing. 

And for the record I said these same things in defense of Al Franken. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, fatness said:

and both remind me of Grandfather Clock on Captain Kangaroo.

I think this says as much about your age as it does Feinstein or Grassley...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I know this isn't your intent, but the old and slow and having it since july comments sound funny to me together. Like she moves soooooo sloooooow that it took her two months just to be able to read some emails and move forward with this. 

Lol. I meant it as a comment on taking all this long to just decide what to do with it. My mom got like that until we (I) finally had to move her into assisted living --- she just kept everything and never decided anything any more.

I do highly recommend watching any old clips of Captain Kangaroo featuring Grandfather Clock. He'd wake up, talk clearly for a few minutes, and then just nod off mid-sentence until the next show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:
21 minutes ago, fatness said:

and both remind me of Grandfather Clock on Captain Kangaroo.

I think this says as much about your age as it does Feinstein or Grassley...

Yes it does. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Well we disagree. There’s an allegation of rape. I want to know how credible it is. This is a lifetime appointment to the most powerful court in the land. It can wait a week or so while this gets sorted out. If it turns out to be nothing, fine. But it should not be ignored. 

I agree with this.

Its actually better for this to be dealt with now - even from a GOP perspective, than later in an impeachment hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

The allegation is that Kavanaugh tried to force himself on somebody, not that he actually raped anybody.

The allegation is that she escaped. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say this - I find the perjury allegations far more disqualifying for a SC nominee, than allegations of sexual misconduct while a teenager.

I realize I am in the minority here, but that is also probably why the sexual misconduct allegations were leaked - nobody cares anymore if people blatantly lie.  Its more surprising when people tell the truth. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Is there a legal distinction between attempted rape and rape?

Jesus Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"He should be a supreme court justice because he didn't get the woman drunk enough to be incapacitated before he tried to gang rape her with a buddy" is not a legitimate line of discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
3 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I will say this - I find the perjury allegations far more disqualifying for a SC nominee, than allegations of sexual misconduct while a teenager.

This. Especially when the perjury occurred in his Senate confirmation for his first judicial appointment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

"He should be a supreme court justice because he didn't get the woman drunk enough to be incapacitated before he tried to gang rape her with a buddy" is not a legitimate line of discussion.

I can only assume this is directed at me.  Can you provide a link to where I said anything resembling that quote?  All I asked is that tim get his facts straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I can only assume this is directed at me.  Can you provide a link to where I said anything resembling that quote?  All I asked is that tim get his facts straight.

For purposes of this conversation, why does it matter if she alleges he raped her versus attempted to rape her?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I will say this - I find the perjury allegations far more disqualifying for a SC nominee, than allegations of sexual misconduct while a teenager.

If you're referring to the perjury allegations about stolen documents, that's what bothers me most as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

For purposes of this conversation, why does it matter if she alleges he raped her versus attempted to rape her?

For the purposes of this conversation, why does it matter if Kavanaugh is accused of rape or whether he's accused of murder?

Personally, I like to be accurate when I say things.  I'm picky that way.  If Kavanaugh were accused of rape, I would say things like "Kavanaugh has been accused of rape" as opposed to "Kavanaugh has been accused of attempted rape."  (Technically that latter statement would still be true but highly misleading).  Kavanaugh has not been accused of rape, so it seems odd to say that he has.

It seems bizarre to me to draw any moral inference from that.

Edited by IvanKaramazov
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IvanKaramazov said:

For the purposes of this conversation, why does it matter if Kavanaugh is accused of rape or whether he's accused of murder?

Personally, I like to be accurate when I say things.  I'm picky that way.  If Kavanaugh were accused of rape, I would say things like "Kavanaugh has been accused of rape" as opposed to "Kavanaugh has been accused of attempted rape."  (Technically that latter statement would still be true but highly misleading).  Kavanaugh has not been accused of rape, so it seems odd to say that he has.

 

Do you believe that attempted rape would disqualify him from being a Supreme Court Justice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

 

Do you believe that attempted rape would disqualify him from being a Supreme Court Justice?

Yes.  

I also think attempted murder would disqualify a nominee.  I wouldn't refer to that person as a murderer.  Not because attempted murder is okay (nobody thinks that), but because it would be factually wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To put it differently, if you think that attempted rape should be disqualifying, then why make the leap from "attempted rape" to "rape?"  Why muddy the water?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Yes.  

I also think attempted murder would disqualify a nominee.  I wouldn't refer to that person as a murderer.  Not because attempted murder is okay (nobody thinks that), but because it would be factually wrong.

Except in this instance we don't actually know that it's factually wrong, and if it happened in D.C. your distinction about legal differences being what matters means no one can be called a rapist.  Because there's no conviction for "rape" in D.C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

To put it differently, if you think that attempted rape should be disqualifying, then why make the leap from "attempted rape" to "rape?"  Why muddy the water?

Because the word "rape" means different things to different people, she may have actually been raped despite having not had his genitals inside hers, and creating that distinction before the actual allegations are known is, in fact, making a factual determination prior to knowing the facts on something that doesn't matter to the discussion and is absolutely going to be a talking point for the GOP as this moves forward.

Edit: and I didn't make the leap to "rape", tim did. 

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Amazing

Just an angry guy I suppose  and seemingly protected by mods when he lashes out. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

To put it differently, if you think that attempted rape should be disqualifying, then why make the leap from "attempted rape" to "rape?"  Why muddy the water?

Also to put it differently, as to your question earlier, "No, if you're in Washington, D.C., there is no legal distinction between rape and attempted rape.  Neither one is a crime."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam Stein‏Verified account @samstein 1h1 hour ago

Republicans having 65 signatories ready to go to attest to Kavanaugh’s high school conduct suggests that they too knew about the outlines of these allegations and have chosen strategically to play defense.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/14/gop-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-allegation-824699

An anonymous woman alleges Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape her when the two were in high school.

Republicans released a letter from 65 women, who knew him in his high school years, defending his character 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

Because the word "rape" means different things to different people, she may have actually been raped despite having not had his genitals inside hers, and creating that distinction before the actual allegations are known is, in fact, making a factual determination prior to knowing the facts on something that doesn't matter to the discussion.

There it is. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, squistion said:

Sam Stein‏Verified account @samstein 1h1 hour ago

Republicans having 65 signatories ready to go to attest to Kavanaugh’s high school conduct suggests that they too knew about the outlines of these allegations and have chosen strategically to play defense.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/14/gop-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-allegation-824699

An anonymous woman alleges Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape her when the two were in high school.

Republicans released a letter from 65 women, who knew him in his high school years, defending his character 

Breaking news: Brett Kavanaugh knew 65 different women well enough when he was a teenager for them to testify about his character, despite going to an all-boys school.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, parasaurolophus said:

There it is. 

 

Not sure what "it" is, but we're not using legal terminology that applies to this case in here.  If we were, the word "rape" wouldn't be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sand said:

The whole premise of the secret letter kept secretly but leaked out to create a last second ruckus is the very epitome of not credible.  Try to find any credibility in the whole sad situation and work your way from there.  Once you find nothing but fog and hot air you'll maybe come to the conclusion that there is no need to search for credence in anything here.   It's all a wisp of air.

Seems a lot more than a wisp now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Henry Ford said:

Yeah, this doesn't start with "hey, man, you hang out in here and turn the music up while I try to rape this girl."  Nor end with it.

lets not rehash the Roethelisberger thing. How was Willie Colon to have known?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Can you explain the difference to me? I’m not getting it. Are you suggesting it’s OK because he tried but did not succeed? 

The allegations lack specificity such that one could parse between the terms "rape" and "sexual assault".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

For the purposes of this conversation, why does it matter if Kavanaugh is accused of rape or whether he's accused of murder?

Personally, I like to be accurate when I say things.  I'm picky that way.  If Kavanaugh were accused of rape, I would say things like "Kavanaugh has been accused of rape" as opposed to "Kavanaugh has been accused of attempted rape."  (Technically that latter statement would still be true but highly misleading).  Kavanaugh has not been accused of rape, so it seems odd to say that he has.

It seems bizarre to me to draw any moral inference from that.

Then why did you say earlier that Feinstein accused Kavanaugh of raping somebody when in fact Feinstein hadn’t made any public statements about the content of the letter?  Wouldn’t someone trying to be accurate when they say things try harder than that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bruce Dickinson said:

Then why did you say earlier that Feinstein accused Kavanaugh of raping somebody when in fact Feinstein hadn’t made any public statements about the content of the letter?  Wouldn’t someone trying to be accurate when they say things try harder than that?

Because it's accurate to say that innuendo is a deliberate and cowardly attempt to make people believe the worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, timschochet said:

And this is why, @HellToupee that I wrote last night that Laura Ingraham has no credibility and Diane Feinstein does. You need to stop basing your trust of people on how closely they share your political opinions. 

Feinstein , a crooked hack pol has been on the take from the Chinese. But she’s one of the good guys 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.