Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Sinn Fein

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, -fish- said:
9 minutes ago, Qanon said:

 

12 minutes ago, -fish- said:

You seem pretty fixated on homosexual sex.  

Racist much? You should be reported. 

 

Is English your second language?  You seem to struggle with comprehension a lot.

:lmao:  What in the name of the entire pantheon of gods is racist about that? :lmao:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

How many women went to Kavanaugh’s high school when he was a student there?

He went to an all-boys prep school.   Qanon is just wrong about facts again.

Edited by -fish-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Sand said:

Then how does one actually defend themselves against an accusation like this?  (This is rhetorical - basically you can't, certainly by your standards).  

He has categorically denied doing anything wrong and he has a huge host of women vouch for his good character.  How else do you defend yourself against a 35 year old he said/she said accusation?

I'll hang up and listen.

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

After that I think the burden falls to the poeple that nominated him, and are tasked with weighing in on their nomination in their role as representatives of the public, to investigate the matter and ensure that there’s no truth to it. Would you say that the GOP has done that in this case?  

Assuming not, and perhaps giving them a MASSIVE benefit of the doubt and assuming that they kept it under wraps because they didn’t know about it or wanted to protect the victims desire for anonymity, what would you say is their obligation now that the story is public?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TobiasFunke said:

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

After that I think the burden falls to the poeple that nominated him, and are tasked with weighing in on their nomination in their role as representatives of the public, to investigate the matter and ensure that there’s no truth to it. Would you say that the GOP has done that in this case?  

Assuming not, and perhaps giving them a MASSIVE benefit of the doubt and assuming that they kept it under wraps because they didn’t know about it or wanted to protect the victims desire for anonymity, what would you say is their obligation now that the story is public?

Put the accuser under oath.  Put him under oath.  Listen to their testimony.  Weigh their credibility.   Just like a normal proceeding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Put the accuser under oath.  Put him under oath.  Listen to their testimony.  Weigh their credibility.   Just like a normal proceeding.

Well in this case the accuser wants to remain anonymous, so I’d say their only obligation is to hear his testimony and investigate any corroboration (on either side) and then call it a day. That would be enough for me.

Any wagers on what the party of Donald Trump will actually do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, proninja said:

The guy who supports Trump talking about being respectful is pretty rich 

Yea, sorry I'm on the wrong side.  Apparently your on the side that won't criticize ""so shove that "your side" stuff up your ###.

to each their own.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, timschochet said:

I’m amazed at you guys offering such bland assurances. How does anybody know? 

Late hour desperation charge that anyone could make about anyone at any time.   I refuse to waste my time on this.  This from Clarence Thomas & it fits perfect & sums up my feelings as well.   Oh, & so sorry to briefly intrude on your party.

THOMAS: This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. It is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves. And it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, irishidiot said:

Late hour desperation charge that anyone could make about anyone at any time.   I refuse to waste my time on this.  This from Clarence Thomas & it fits perfect & sums up my feelings as well.   Oh, & so sorry to briefly intrude on your party.

THOMAS: This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. It is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves. And it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.

The letter was written in July.  

Anyway, you all should definitely keep dismissing and minimizing sexual assault allegations and putting the men accused of them in positions of power.  I’m sure that will work out great for conservatives/ Republicans going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, irishidiot said:

Late hour desperation charge that anyone could make about anyone at any time.   I refuse to waste my time on this.  This from Clarence Thomas & it fits perfect & sums up my feelings as well.   Oh, & so sorry to briefly intrude on your party.

THOMAS: This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. It is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves. And it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.

Kavanaugh is black now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TobiasFunke said:

The letter was written in July.  

Anyway, you all should definitely keep dismissing and minimizing sexual assault allegations and putting the men accused of them in positions of power.  I’m sure that will work out great for conservatives/ Republicans going forward.

Hmmmmm...Minimize an allegation we know almost nothing about and is from 35 years ago with zero corroborating evidence(at least so far) on the heels of an extremely invasive process that hasn't yet turned any other examples of this...

orrrrrrrr...... We can grab our pitchforks.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, parasaurolophus said:

Hmmmmm...Minimize an allegation we know almost nothing about and is from 35 years ago with zero corroborating evidence(at least so far) on the heels of an extremely invasive process that hasn't yet turned any other examples of this...

orrrrrrrr...... We can grab our pitchforks.

 

 

 

 

Are those the only two options? That’s weird, because I feel like I laid out a perfectly reasonable middle ground like 3 posts ago. 

But hey, keep it up. I’m sure it’ll work out great over the next several election cycles.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Qanon said:

Trump never said he grabbed women by the &*&^&, it is a lie.

Read the transcript.

He said "you could" he never said he did.

Just another lie from the Fake News.

Can you provide a link of a tape or transcript of him saying "you could" Because I just watched multiple tapes with transcripts from different sources of what he said and not on any of them did he say "you could ".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, squistion said:

Why is Feinstein disgusting? You must be aware that Ronan Farrow independently verified the details of the sexual assault allegation in an article today in The New Yorker.

:shrug:

The details are 3 people involved in this allegation. Two out of the 3 deny it and the accuser is the only one unnamed . 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, the rover said:

They were pretty quick to demand Franken’s resignation.

I've been thinking about that today.  For me personally, Franken was essentially right on "the line."  I thought he needed to go, but I came to that conclusion reluctantly and I could probably be talked into the position that his behavior wasn't quite bad enough to warrant being driven from office.

Kavanaugh's case is obviously different for several reasons.  The first is that I would like to see him confirmed, so I'm prone to motivated reasoning on his behalf that I wouldn't have extended to Franken, and I need to be cognizant of that as I think about this issue.  Second, attempted rape is a bigger deal than grab-###.  Third, and weighing against my previous point, is that one's behavior in high school is less of a big deal than one's behavior as an adult.  But I think #2 outweighs #3, and I just can't see somebody guilty of attempted rape sitting on the bench even if the offense occurred when they were 17. 

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.

In Franken's case, I was very strongly influenced by the fact that multiple accusers came forward, on the record.  As long as we have one allegation by a person who wishes to remain anonymous, I strongly support moving full steam ahead with confirmation.  My opinion would change somewhat if the accuser was willing to go on record, depending on the details of what was being alleged, and it would change a lot if other women came forward. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I've been thinking about that today.  For me personally, Franken was essentially right on "the line."  I thought he needed to go, but I came to that conclusion reluctantly and I could probably be talked into the position that his behavior wasn't quite bad enough to warrant being driven from office.

Kavanaugh's case is obviously different for several reasons.  The first is that I would like to see him confirmed, so I'm prone to motivated reasoning on his behalf that I wouldn't have extended to Franken, and I need to be cognizant of that as I think about this issue.  Second, attempted rape is a bigger deal than grab-###.  Third, and weighing against my previous point, is that one's behavior in high school is less of a big deal than one's behavior as an adult.  But I think #2 outweighs #3, and I just can't see somebody guilty of attempted rape sitting on the bench even if the offense occurred when they were 17. 

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.

In Franken's case, I was very strongly influenced by the fact that multiple accusers came forward, on the record.  As long as we have one allegation by a person who wishes to remain anonymous, I strongly support moving full steam ahead with confirmation.  My opinion would change somewhat if the accuser was willing to go on record, depending on the details of what was being alleged, and it would change a lot if other women came forward. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Clayton Gray changed the title to ***Official Supreme Court nomination thread: Welcome New Justice

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.
×
  • Create New...