Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

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

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, the rover said:

I agree that the anonymous part of this changes the calculus.  Right to confront your accuser and all.  

I understand why she would want to remain anonymous, though.  A lot of crazy people out there, and I could see her life being made a living hell.

Now imagine if she wore a MAGA hat.

Share this post


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

Now imagine if she wore a MAGA hat.

Then I’d know she was lying.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I know HF will disagree with me on this, but I will draw a very sharp distinction here between "attempted kissing" and "attempted genital penetration."  I know he's arguing that these are legally equivalent, but I don't see them as morally equivalent at all and I would lose no sleep giving a pass to the first (as a teenager, not an adult) while the second is clearly disqualifying.

 

Covering someone’s mouth and turning up the music to keep her quiet while she protests and attempting to force yourself on her isn’t “attempted kissing” and I have not and would not draw an equivalence between the two things. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m firmly in the “wait and see what happens” camp on these things until someone inevitably comes in to downplay over and over again what the allegations are.  It’s patently offensive and truly the worst thing on the internet. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I’m firmly in the “wait and see what happens” camp on these things until someone inevitably comes in to downplay over and over again what the allegations are.  It’s patently offensive and truly the worst thing on the internet. 

Worse than this?

Share this post


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

Covering someone’s mouth and turning up the music to keep her quiet while she protests and attempting to force yourself on her isn’t “attempted kissing” and I have not and would not draw an equivalence between the two things. 

Well at least we agree on that.

Share this post


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

Well at least we agree on that.

I wouldn’t shoot someone for attempting to kiss a loved one of mine.  It’s a pretty easy distinction. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hard time believing any Republican is going to care about this new story considering what the president has done. Even if this woman goes on record, hell... even if more come out. This guy is confirmed. The Rs need him on board for the next session.

Share this post


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

So did I..when we partied with the girls from the all girls Catholic schools you did not need to grab ### as they were grabbing ### first.

I went to an all boys school . The chicks from the public HS and all girls school dug us. To the public’s we different and superior to the public boys and to the all girl school we were the forbidden fruit. Good times

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I’m firmly in the “wait and see what happens” camp on these things until someone inevitably comes in to downplay over and over again what the allegations are.  It’s patently offensive and truly the worst thing on the internet. 

:shrug:

it was the 80s

Share this post


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

I have a hard time believing any Republican is going to care about this new story considering what the president has done. Even if this woman goes on record, hell... even if more come out. This guy is confirmed. The Rs need him on board for the next session.

Video evidence of Kavanaugh raping a girl at a party could surface and the Senate would still confirm him.  They can't back down now.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't been keeping up with this thread today because of the hurricane but why did it take the girl 30 years to all of a sudden come forward?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Video evidence of Kavanaugh raping a girl at a party could surface and the Senate would still confirm him.  They can't back down now.  

Unfortunately this is true, and it's a strong argument for why we should go back to the old norms on SCOTUS nominees after this one.  Considering what happened with Garland, Republicans have no right to complain if they lose this seat as a result of Kavanaugh getting sunk. But then it's time for folks to realize how dysfunctional this system is.  You are 100% right that a large number of Republicans would vote to confirm a known sex offender if the alternative is losing the seat, which is exactly what's at stake in the midterms.  It's much better if the president can withdraw a bad nomination and send up somebody better instead.

Share this post


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

Do it under oath. That’s the extent of his obligation and ability to defend himself, obviously.

That's a political lynching, given the tone and tenor of the proceedings.  Heck, even RBG has expressed her thoughts on how awful this process is.

Share this post


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

:shrug:

it was the 80s

I remember the 80s.  Never tried to rape anybody.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 it's a strong argument for why we should go back to the old norms on SCOTUS nominees after this one.

What a maximum Republican thing to say. Gore v bush, now this, i wonder what the next aspect of governmentthe Rs will make a sham of then go "hey lets go back to how things used to be" and pretend nothing was wrong. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Why should we believe you?

I’ll write him a letter

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Why should we believe you?

Because no one has ever said otherwise?

Share this post


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

Unfortunately this is true, and it's a strong argument for why we should go back to the old norms on SCOTUS nominees after this one.

It's a strong argument for why we should do it now. I read this as rooting for Kavanaugh to be approved.

The fact that Republicans won't do it now has nothing to do with "should".

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It's much better if the president can withdraw a bad nomination and send up somebody better instead.

The president can do that now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I remember the 80s.  Never tried to rape anybody.

Going on a tangent here, but speaking of both the 80's and rape, 'Revenge of the Nerds' sure hasn't aged well. I saw it again not long ago and damn those nerds are pretty awful people whose characters probably should have faced a lot of criminal charges. The jocks were the real heroes trying to protect their community from these incels.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hilts said:

Going on a tangent here, but speaking of both the 80's and rape, 'Revenge of the Nerds' sure hasn't aged well. I saw it again not long ago and damn those nerds are pretty awful people whose characters probably should have faced a lot of criminal charges. The jocks were the real heroes trying to protect their community from these incels.

Right?  The nerds were rapists and pornographers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So it was two?

And then if someone did I should be forced to confront the allegation under oath.  And once I do I expect people would check into my history of testifying under oath and see if I had a tendency to tell the whole truth and be forthcoming.  

Share this post


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

I’ll write him a letter

No need.  No one has spent the last two weeks talking about how I lie under oath. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best part of all this.  “He denies it!”

Yeah, but he apparently has been lying to Congress under oath for about twelve years, so.... let’s all hold off and see how this goes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In very few of my romantic encounters, all consensual, did I feel the need, or did the female want, to have one of my buddies in the room or area.  In fact, generally we wanted to be alone absent a few 3 way scenarios that still never involved one of my male friends.

While  there may have been times I wished my date or partner would shut the hell up I never had cause to put my hand over their mouth.

There are not 65 folks who would rally to testify about my character if a call went out for 30 consecutive days.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, proninja said:

I have bad news for you about going back to the old norms if a large number of Republicans would vote to confirm a known sex offender if the alternative is losing the seat. 

The democrats can play as nice as they want. Republicans won't. At least not as presently composed. 

The old norms were country over party. If you can talk your fellow conservatives back to that I'd really appreciate it. 

You have a much longer memory than I if you can remember a time when politicians put “country over party.” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously...people are taking an anonymous letter provided by a partisan politician about an incident 35 years ago right before a very  contentious politicized nomination as if it were gospel and as if that is the moral high ground.   Unbelievable.   

Share this post


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

Seriously...people are taking an anonymous letter provided by a partisan politician about an incident 35 years ago right before a very  contentious politicized nomination as if it were gospel and as if that is the moral high ground.   Unbelievable.   

Who is taking it as gospel jon?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Who is taking it as gospel jon?

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to answer to this.  Anyone who refers to him as a rapist or attempted rapist.  Anyone thinking the Republicans are the ones looking bad here.  Pretty much all the usual posters on this forum.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2018 at 7:45 AM, irishidiot said:

The actions of the Dems in confirmation hearings were disgraceful. How anyone could watch that circus & come away with anything other than disdain for the leaders of the Dem party is beyond me.  That whole sham was disgraceful.  This latest thing by Feinstein is just another layer on a cake that is already a giant hunk of mold.  Damn, that whole process was really disappointing.  IMO

I Remain,

Sparticus

:goodposting:

There can be only two reasons that the Dems acted in such a pathetic manner (again).

  1. It was a Trump appointment so they had to resist at all cost....even at the cost of their own integrity (for those who may still have some remaining)
  2. The Dems cannot imagine a world where men in a position of authority do not take advantage of the women with whom they come in contact therefore, Kavanaugh MUST be a pig.

I vote...both.

Edited by Opie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Megaton said:

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to answer to this.  Anyone who refers to him as a rapist or attempted rapist.  Anyone thinking the Republicans are the ones looking bad here.  Pretty much all the usual posters on this forum.   

Saying someone needs to respond to an allegation or saying we should wait and see if other accusers come forward is not taking something as gospel. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

:goodposting:

There can be only two reasons that the Dems acted in such a pathetic manner (again).

  1. It was a Trump appointment so they had to resist at all cost....even at the cost of their own integrity
  2. The Dems cannot imagine a world where men in a position of authority do not take advantage of the women with whom they come in contact therefore, Kavanaugh MUST be a pig.

I vote...both.

As a general matter, I think integrity is currently in short supply on both sides of the aisle when it comes to Supreme Court nominations.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You don't think an attempted rape allegation is something a Supreme Court nominee should have to answer for? 

When we know who, what, when and where from a confirmed source we will have an allegation.  Right now we have second-hand partial knowledge of some alledged letter that anyone could have written to derail the process.  

Edited by Megaton
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Megaton said:

Seriously...people are taking an anonymous letter provided by a partisan politician about an incident 35 years ago right before a very  contentious politicized nomination as if it were gospel and as if that is the moral high ground.   Unbelievable.   

What if the letter wasn’t anonymous?  

What if the reaction wasn’t “gospel”, but “since we’re interviewing this guy for a job he might hold for 40 years in one of the most powerful seats in the country, maybe we should take a week or two to investigate this just to make sure we’ve got the right guy”.

What if what you posted was “unbelievable” because it didn’t reflect reality?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Saying someone needs to respond to an allegation or saying we should wait and see if other accusers come forward is not taking something as gospel. 

I am just waiting for a first accuser to come forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Megaton said:

When we know who, what, when and where from a confirmed source we will have an allegation.  Right now we have second-hand partial knowledge of some alledged letter that anyone could have written to derail the process.  

The Senate Judiciary Committee knows who, what, when, and where.  The person who wrote the letter met with their Congressperson and one of their Senators in person to discuss the contents of it.  And delivered it months ago.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I am just waiting for a first accuser to come forward. 

Okay.  Thanks for updating me. 

Share this post


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

Saying someone needs to respond to an allegation or saying we should wait and see if other accusers come forward is not taking something as gospel. 

Why is someone coming forward after 30 years? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Megaton said:

Anyone who thinks he has an obligation to answer to this.  Anyone who refers to him as a rapist or attempted rapist.  Anyone thinking the Republicans are the ones looking bad here.  Pretty much all the usual posters on this forum.   

I don't think that means taking it as gospel...but yes, he probably should have to answer about several things.

And yes...the Republicans do look bad (that doesn't meant the dems don't also)...but given their behaviors regarding the SC in the past...trying to act as if questions like this are not relevant is a bad look.

And I see losing your Jon account does not stop you from continuing to make overly generalized statements about posters here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Why is someone coming forward after 30 years? 

Good point, Mr. Cosby, we’ll use that in our closing argument. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Good point, Mr. Cosby, we’ll use that in our closing argument. 

Not sure why you feel the need to be a smart ###.  It's a legitimate question.  Assuming this really did happen to her, why did she wait 30 years?  What made her decide to all of a sudden go public?

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.