Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

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

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

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?

The guy who tried to rape her whom she’s been discussing in therapy for 30 years is being nominated to a lifetime appointment where he gets to decide whether women get to control their own bodies. 

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 5

Share this post


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

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

Will the accuser remain unnamed, at least to him? 

 

26 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

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?

A week or two? Lol. You sell out your true motivation. 

 

Share this post


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

The guy who tried to rape her whom she’s been discussing in therapy for 30 years is being nominated to a lifetime appointment where he gets to decide whether women get to control their own bodies. 

@sho nuff still want to try and argue that the usual suspects arent taking this as gospel?

Share this post


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

The guy who tried to rape her whom she’s been discussing in therapy for 30 years is being nominated to a lifetime appointment where he gets to decide whether women get to control their own bodies. 

So the alleged attempted rape wasn't that important for all the other years he was a judge and this is an attempt to block him for being on the SCOTUS?

Share this post


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

So the alleged attempted rape wasn't that important for all the other years he was a judge and this is an attempt to block him for being on the SCOTUS?

I haven’t spoken with her.  But this post is a great example of why women don’t come forward. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

@sho nuff still want to try and argue that the usual suspects arent taking this as gospel?

His post said “assuming this really did happen”

So my response assumed it really did happen.  No one is taking this as gospel.  

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours 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. 

 

8 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

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.  

 

36 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. 

 

18 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

I've seriously been asking people for what they're claiming all day.  We don't have any idea what this woman is claiming Kavanaugh did, other than vague assertions.  We don't know what Feinstein said other than a statement definitely not providing innuendo (in fact not even asserting the sex of the person who wrote the letter.)  I'm just trying to figure out what's going on.

 

18 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

If "he tried to force himself on me" = "He grabbed me and held me down and then I kicked him and ran away" then yes, he's an accused attempted rapist.

If "he tried to force himself on me" = "He held me down, pulled my clothes to the side and stuck his tongue in me" then he's an accused rapist.

I don't have any idea what the actual allegation is.

 

3 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

@sho nuff still want to try and argue that the usual suspects arent taking this as gospel?

Yes...because of posts like the above and his other thoughts that have been made pretty clear...things you should probably read before commenting as you just did.  Plus his latest reply to you shows what he is saying...HTH

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I haven’t spoken with her.  But this post is a great example of why women don’t come forward. 

I asked why it took her 30 years to come forward and you said so the guy won't be on the SCOTUS.   And you're blaming me?  Take a break, Ford.

Share this post


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

So the alleged attempted rape wasn't that important for all the other years he was a judge and this is an attempt to block him for being on the SCOTUS?

I think you are focusing on the wrong thing. Sometimes people dont want to come forward, it happens. The more important point here is we are talking about a situation from forever ago when they were both 17 and probably both drinking( even though of course i dont think they have mentioned that she was drinking, but how could we know for sure all these years later). So many grey area possibilities here. Especially when one thing that is an almost absolute among people is that their account of a situation puts them in the best light. Memories also morph quite a bit over time. 

Oh and in addition we are getting a third hand account of these details.

By making a big deal of it and putting it in the news for 2 more weeks isnt a legit endeavor. It is literally impossible to get to the bottom of this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s assume for a moment that the Kavanaugh supporters in this thread and elsewhere are correct and that this accusation is completely false; it never happened. 

If so, then there’s two ways for the Republicans to handle it: 

“Attempted rape is a serious accusation. We have strong doubts that it ever happened, but nonetheless we’re going to investigate because we want to be absolutely sure. (A week later). We’ve investigated and determined there’s nothing to this. We’re moving forward.”

or 

“Screw you. This is just partisan crap. It’s all lies. We don’t need to investigate; we know. Let’s push through this vote right now and anyone who doesn’t like it, too bad.” 

The Republicans are seemingly choosing the second approach. I don’t think it’s a wise choice, either politically or morally for that matter. I think they will regret it. 

Share this post


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

 

 

 

 

 

Yes...because of posts like the above and his other thoughts that have been made pretty clear...things you should probably read before commenting as you just did.  Plus his latest reply to you shows what he is saying...HTH

No it doesnt. He has referred to somebody as cosby. He has said minimizing this is the worst thing on the internet. He doesnt get to have his cake and eat it too. Dont be a sucker.

Share this post


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

Let’s assume for a moment that the Kavanaugh supporters in this thread and elsewhere are correct and that this accusation is completely false; it never happened. 

If so, then there’s two ways for the Republicans to handle it: 

“Attempted rape is a serious accusation. We have strong doubts that it ever happened, but nonetheless we’re going to investigate because we want to be absolutely sure. (A week later). We’ve investigated and determined there’s nothing to this. We’re moving forward.”

or 

“Screw you. This is just partisan crap. It’s all lies. We don’t need to investigate; we know. Let’s push through this vote right now and anyone who doesn’t like it, too bad.” 

The Republicans are seemingly choosing the second approach. I don’t think it’s a wise choice, either politically or morally for that matter. I think they will regret it. 

Impossible endeavor. 

Share this post


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

 

By making a big deal of it and putting it in the news for 2 more weeks isnt a legit endeavor. It is literally impossible to get to the bottom of this. 

You could be right. But I think you have to try anyhow. It’s a lifetime appointment. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

A week or two? Lol. You sell out your true motivation. 

I’m happy you have a life where victims of sexual misconduct are nothing more than pawns in a game you can laugh at.  I don’t have that luxury.  I’m glad you don’t understand and empathize with victims well enough to get why it could take so long for a victim to come forward.  It’s a reality I wish I didn’t understand or have to deal with on a daily basis.

The point of mentioning any type of delay was because this is worth waiting on to sort this out.  If this letter turns out to be nothing, Kavanaugh will still get his 40 years on the Supreme Court.  It’s a decision that’s really hard to undo, and the seat is so important it’s worth some patience to get right.

And it’s not like this is the first blip on an otherwise sparkling career and character. It took three years and a negotiated deal to get Kavanaugh to the job he’s at now, and it turns out he lied under oath to get it.  In normal world, this would be enough cause for withdrawal from a SCOTUS nomination and potential removal from the bench.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski have been awfully silent about this. If they announced that they can’t support this guy until this matter is resolved with an investigation, then there WILL be an investigation. But would they do this? 

Share this post


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

I think you are focusing on the wrong thing. Sometimes people dont want to come forward, it happens. The more important point here is we are talking about a situation from forever ago when they were both 17 and probably both drinking( even though of course i dont think they have mentioned that she was drinking, but how could we know for sure all these years later). So many grey area possibilities here. Especially when one thing that is an almost absolute among people is that their account of a situation puts them in the best light. Memories also morph quite a bit over time. 

Oh and in addition we are getting a third hand account of these details.

By making a big deal of it and putting it in the news for 2 more weeks isnt a legit endeavor. It is literally impossible to get to the bottom of this. 

That's not really true.  We may not be able to get CSI-level certainty about the truth of this allegation, but there are things that we can draw inferences from that should make the allegation more credible or less credible.  

For example, the accuser identified a third party who at least witnessed the attempted rape and possibly participated in it.  If that person had come forward and said "Yep, I was there and that totally happened just like she described," that would definitely make the allegation a lot more believable.  Actually, though, that guy categorically denied this story.

Similarly, if the accuser told somebody about this attack contemporaneously, that would also be corroborating evidence.  It doesn't have to be a police report. Just a friend that who says "I wasn't at the party, but she seemed really shaken the next day, and when I asked her what was wrong she said that Brett tried to rape her."  So far we don't have any evidence that anything like that happened, but for all we know there may be something like that in the letter -- we haven't seen it.

If the accuser's therapist says (with permission obviously) that the accuser did actually talk about this attack in therapy 15 years ago, that would be mild corroborating evidence.  That still leaves a long gap and leaves open the possibility that the accuser is misremembering things, but it would clearly make her account at least a little more believable.

And of course, if other women come forward to say that they too were assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh, then the story becomes much more believable.  That may very well happen.  It hasn't yet, but it's too soon to expect that now. 

In other words, yeah, right now this is her word against theirs, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to produce evidence that she's telling the truth.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

No it doesnt. He has referred to somebody as cosby. He has said minimizing this is the worst thing on the internet. He doesnt get to have his cake and eat it too. Dont be a sucker.

What? The Cosby thing is because someone keeps acting as of the length of time is relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep it's a pretty standard he (who has lied in front of Congress) said, she said

Share this post


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

I asked why it took her 30 years to come forward and you said so the guy won't be on the SCOTUS.   And you're blaming me?  Take a break, Ford.

I did not say so he wouldn’t be on SCOTUS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why is someone coming forward after 30 years? "

I heard she was easy anyway. Did you see that dress she had on? Pretty revealing.

Share this post


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

No it doesnt. He has referred to somebody as cosby. He has said minimizing this is the worst thing on the internet. He doesnt get to have his cake and eat it too. Dont be a sucker.

I referred to “they didn’t come forward for 30 years” as a Cosby defense.  And yes, minimizing the allegations themselves - not the truth of them, but making fun of someone saying she had to fight off a rapist by saying it was attempted kissing - is the worst thing on the internet. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

That's not really true.  We may not be able to get CSI-level certainty about the truth of this allegation, but there are things that we can draw inferences from that should make the allegation more credible or less credible.  

For example, the accuser identified a third party who at least witnessed the attempted rape and possibly participated in it.  If that person had come forward and said "Yep, I was there and that totally happened just like she described," that would definitely make the allegation a lot more believable.  Actually, though, that guy categorically denied this story.

Similarly, if the accuser told somebody about this attack contemporaneously, that would also be corroborating evidence.  It doesn't have to be a police report. Just a friend that who says "I wasn't at the party, but she seemed really shaken the next day, and when I asked her what was wrong she said that Brett tried to rape her."  So far we don't have any evidence that anything like that happened, but for all we know there may be something like that in the letter -- we haven't seen it.

If the accuser's therapist says (with permission obviously) that the accuser did actually talk about this attack in therapy 15 years ago, that would be mild corroborating evidence.  That still leaves a long gap and leaves open the possibility that the accuser is misremembering things, but it would clearly make her account at least a little more believable.

And of course, if other women come forward to say that they too were assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh, then the story becomes much more believable.  That may very well happen.  It hasn't yet, but it's too soon to expect that now. 

In other words, yeah, right now this is her word against theirs, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to produce evidence that she's telling the truth.

Do you have a link to where he categorically denied the story? The last one I saw was him saying he had no recollection of that happening. 

Share this post


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

Do you have a link to where he categorically denied the story? The last one I saw was him saying he had no recollection of that happening. 

 

Quote

The Kavanaugh classmate quoted in the New Yorker is Mark Judge, a writer in Washington, D.C. Judge spoke to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Friday afternoon, strongly denying that any such incident ever occurred. "It's just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way," Judge told TWS.

Judge says he first learned he was named in the letter during an interview with the New Yorker. "[Ronan Farrow] said: As you know, you're named in the letter. And I did not know," he said.

The Kavanaugh classmate told TWS that the New Yorker did not provide him the name of the woman alleging wrongdoing, a specific date of the alleged incident, or the location where the incident is alleged to have occurred. The woman alleging misconduct has requested that her identity be protected, according to media reports.

After Judge categorically denied ever witnessing an attempted assault by Kavanaugh, I asked him if he could recall any sort of rough-housing with a female student back in high school (an incident that might have been interpreted differently by parties involved). "I can't. I can recall a lot of rough-housing with guys. It was an all-boys school, we would rough-house with each other," he said said. "I don't remember any of that stuff going on with girls."

Judge says he still does not know the name of the woman who made the allegations.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mccormack/kavanaugh-classmate-named-in-letter-strongly-denies-allegations-of-misconduct

Share this post


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

Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski have been awfully silent about this. If they announced that they can’t support this guy until this matter is resolved with an investigation, then there WILL be an investigation. But would they do this? 

The party would kick either of them out if they did.

This is why the party has been eating Trump’s #### for two years: getting a reliable conservative on the Supreme Court capable of serving for 40 years.  They aren’t letting lying under oath stop the proceedings.  Why would they let the word of some skirt who was a teenager and probably drunk and dressed like a slut and didn’t come forward for 30 years stop them?

Remember, after all the awful things Trump said about Ted Cruz, his wife, and his family during the campaign, Cruz was still on the phone banks making calls for Trump down the stretch because he knew what an opportunity this would be to control the judicial branch for a generation.  That’s how important this is for the party. 

Edited by Bruce Dickinson

Share this post


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

Oh. Okay, thanks. 

Sure.  I know it’s tough to really empathize with attempted rape victims and think that maybe from their perspectives the only way they can move forward with therapy and their lives when their attempted rapist is in the news is to finally tell someone with authority even though they don’t expect anything to come of it and that maybe, just maybe, it’s not all about the alleged rapist’s new job but more about her for once, but it’s an important perspective to consider in times like this in my opinion. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the many reasons to hate McConnell and for the many more reasons why someone should hate McConnell... it is pretty telling when even McConnell attempted to persuade Trump from nominating Kavanaugh. For as despicable as McConnell is, he has to know something about Kavanaugh that we do not. Maybe this rape thing isn't what McConnell knows but the fact McConnell was not 100% for Kavanaugh is telling.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s possible this woman is lying.  It’s possible she’s flat out crazy.  It’s possible she was drunk or high (on purpose or someone drugged her) and thought Kavanaugh did this and it was actually another person, it’s possible Kavanaugh did this.  There are many possibilities.  They should be looked into before someone is confirmed to the SCOTUS. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sure.  I know it’s tough to really empathize with attempted rape victims and think that maybe from their perspectives the only way they can move forward with therapy and their lives when their attempted rapist is in the news is to finally tell someone with authority even though they don’t expect anything to come of it and that maybe, just maybe, it’s not all about the alleged rapist’s new job but more about her for once, but it’s an important perspective to consider in times like this in my opinion. 

She is not a victim.  We have zero idea if any of the unknown events occurred. 

Share this post


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

She is not a victim.  We have zero idea if any of the unknown events occurred. 

Aren’t these two sentences in direct contradiction of each other? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

For the many reasons to hate McConnell and for the many more reasons why someone should hate McConnell... it is pretty telling when even McConnell attempted to persuade Trump from nominating Kavanaugh. For as despicable as McConnell is, he has to know something about Kavanaugh that we do not. Maybe this rape thing isn't what McConnell knows but the fact McConnell was not 100% for Kavanaugh is telling.

Didn't know this, thanks

Share this post


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

She is not a victim.  We have zero idea if any of the unknown events occurred. 

How would you know that? What if there are contemporaneous accounts from family/acquaintances she told at the time? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rude classless thugs said:

How would you know that? What if there are contemporaneous accounts from family/acquaintances she told at the time? 

When something that collobrates something actually happened, then we can call her a victim.  Right now we have no idea if these two people ever even met.  

Share this post


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

She is not a victim.  We have zero idea if any of the unknown events occurred. 

My conversation with Ramblin is based on an assumption that it is true, as he set that as a parameter for his question. I have said this before. 

Share this post


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

When something that collobrates something actually happened, then we can call her a victim.  Right now we have no idea if these two people ever even met.  

She specifically named Kavenaugh plus his accomplice, How she could come with the second name and give a place and time where it alleged happened if they had never met?

Share this post


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

When something that collobrates something actually happened, then we can call her a victim.  Right now we have no idea if these two people ever even met.  

Whether or not you can call her one has no bearing on whether she is one. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rude classless thugs said:

She specifically named Kavenaugh plus his accomplice, How she could come with the second name and give a place and time where it alleged happened if they had never met?

Maybe she found an old Georgetown Prep yearbook in a thrift store. Who knows?

Share this post


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

Maybe she found an old Georgetown Prep yearbook in a thrift store. Who knows?

Yes, I supposed that is possible, but seems unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rude classless thugs said:

Yes, I supposed that is possible, but seems unlikely.

It does.  Of course, twenty years ago I would have found it equally unlikely that the Republican Party would openly attack women accusing men of attempting to rape them, but here we are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least she’s not a transgender woman trying to find a place to urinate.  Thank God for that. That’s a real danger to our womenfolk. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It’s possible this woman is lying.  It’s possible she’s flat out crazy.  It’s possible she was drunk or high (on purpose or someone drugged her) and thought Kavanaugh did this and it was actually another person, it’s possible Kavanaugh did this.  There are many possibilities.  They should be looked into before someone is confirmed to the SCOTUS. 

I agree with this, with an emphasis on "looked into."  I can imagine a scenario in which this is all resolved in a 5-minute conversation with the woman involved:

Quote

 

Did anybody else witness this attack?  No.

Did you file a police report?  No.

Did you tell anybody else about the attack after it occurred?  No.

Thank you for time.

 

If it plays out like that, we're done and Kavanaugh gets confirmed.  Of course, if any of those questions gets a "yes," then things get a lot more complicated and we should slow this down.

 

Share this post


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

It does.  Of course, twenty years ago I would have found it equally unlikely that the Republican Party would openly attack women accusing men of attempting to rape them, but here we are. 

Anita Hill down? Now, she only accused Thomas of sexual harassment but it would not seem a stretch to believe that if she had accused Thomas of attempted rape, that the attacks on her character by Republicans would have been any less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rude classless thugs said:

Anita Hill down? Now, she only accused Thomas of sexual harassment but it would not seem a stretch to believe that if she had accused Thomas of attempted rape, that the attacks on her character by Republicans would have been any less.

If she had accused him of attempted rape, I believe that the Republican Party would have shut up.  But I may just be naive. 

Share this post


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

I agree with this, with an emphasis on "looked into."  I can imagine a scenario in which this is all resolved in a 5-minute conversation with the woman involved:

If it plays out like that, we're done and Kavanaugh gets confirmed.  Of course, if any of those questions gets a "yes," then things get a lot more complicated and we should slow this down.

 

Does “I’ve been talking to psychologists about this for 20+ years” work for telling someone else?

Share this post


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

It does.  Of course, twenty years ago I would have found it equally unlikely that the Republican Party would openly attack women accusing men of attempting to rape them, but here we are. 

Absolutely.  Twenty years ago we only expected the Democratic Party to play so dirty.  

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.