We’ve lost a lot to attrition. They tend to retire soon after receiving their Genius Grant.
Disingenuous comparo. But then you knew that, didn’t you.
It’s a shitty thing to conflate making an accusation that is wrong and/or can’t be proved via evidence, and lying. It’s exponentially more shitty when that accusation is regarding sexual assault, where it is difficult, painful, and embarrassing for the accusation to be made.
Sometimes women do lie and make malicious accusations. But you’d better be damn sure before making such a claim. Even in our modern “enlightened” society women are victimized at an alarming rate, and it is essential that we do all that we can to encourage and support accusers because sexual assault victims most often are suffering from ongoing trauma that is only exacerbated by being accused of lying.
That doesn’t mean we pillory every man who is ever accused of sexual assault. People are innocent until proven guilty (yes, even Republicans, sorry Democrats) but women who make such accusations deserve all of our respect until and unless their accusations are proven to be malicious. Even when their accusations can’t be proven or they are flat out wrong they still deserve respect.
Here’s a particularly good example.
“Even Republicans, sorry Democrats.”
Christ, do Republicans even KNOW what reality is?
You don’t get to bitch about false accusations----which, when made against a Repub, tend to be accurate accusations that Repubs would rather not deal with----until you atone for each and every instance of, “LOCK HER UP.”
Oh, wait, then there’s the 13,000+ lies Trump has told in office. Oh, wait, then there’s the whines about “fake news.” Then there’s birtherism. Then there’s Fox “News.” Then there’s Project “Veritas.” Then there’s KellyAnne Conway. Then there’s Alex Jones and Glenn Beck and the paranoid bullshit that fuels today’s conservatism. “Obama is a Muslim married to a transgender man while Trump is a devout Christian married to a REAL lady who suffers for his EXTREME patriotism.” “Pizzagate is real but Sandyhook is not.” And then there’s Qanon.
Protip: these are NOT little white lies. These are huge, glaring, obvious whoppers, and the fact that they are lies invalidates the conservative agenda.
Absolutely. Republicans by and large suck. I’m pretty sure I’ve never said otherwise. That still doesn’t make them automatically guilty, as many presumed Kavanaugh was from the very start because of his political leanings and because he was the pick of Trump the Asswipe.
Kavanaugh still has not had proof of wrongdoing (through sexual misconduct) though I am not calling him innocent, especially if there is a further pending investigation. If he’s guilty kick him out of his position via impeachment and ruin his life. But he’s not guilty yet.
That’s some nice post-hoc rationale.
Guilt wasn’t necessary. This wasn’t partisan sniping. This was about proper vetting for a lifetime position in one of the most powerful bodies in our federal government.
Gorsuch is decidedly a conservative. And Trump picked him. And he sailed through his confirmation with nary a hint of scandal. Yes, lots of grumbling but nothing like a hint of salacious behavior nor any real sustained objection to his appointment.
Kavanaugh? Not so much.
There was a difference and there was enough ‘there’ there to have taken the time to properly investigate or even offer up a more different (still conservative) candidate.
Instead, we got what we got - no real investigation of the allegations and a rapid process to ensure we never would. Apparently, we could wait most of a year after Scalia’s death but even a fraction of that was too much time after Kennedy’s retirement.
Garland didn’t do anything. He was rejected on partisan grounds. QuickSilver thinks this is not an injustice, because “nobody is entitled to the job”. That is, he would think that if he were consistent.
Likewise, Kavanaugh didn’t do anything - the reason the Dems got behind the allegations were because of partisan reasons, not because there was any evidence. Fortunately, Kavanaugh was confirmed.
So, what has Garland done that compares to the allegations? Nothing - he didn’t do anything, and the allegations had no substance.
I know you won’t be able to understand this, because, well, it’s you we are talking about, but maybe you can put me back on Ignore and then ask people to tell you what I posted so you can misunderstand it.
Regards,
Shodan
What post-hoc rationale? For what? I’m honestly not sure what you mean.
If you have an objection to the investigation and the way the confirmation was handled I respect that. I prefer that everyone in the highest court be properly vetted too. And your example of Gorsuch is a great one; if partisanship was the sole reason for the investigation then why was it just Kavanaugh? That’s a perfectly reasonable position, and I won’t deny that it makes me uneasy about him. And if it turns out now that he’s guilty of something reprehensible (if not Ford’s accusation then something else), the damage has already been done. He’s taken his seat and been involved in rulings.
I’m just not ready to call him guilty and nobody else should be either, though they are.
Aside from the accusations against him, Kavanaugh did behave in an unhinged fashion during the hearings and almost certainly lied about several mundane details of his youth (drinking habits, yearbook, etc.). Those are things that many folks consider disqualifying for SCOTUS.
If Kavanaugh’s innocent till proven guilty, then so is Hillary. And Blasey-Ford.
Kavanaugh got caught lying several times during his job interview,plus his finances are suspicious. Either of those is enough to toss his ass out the door. As someone else said, his general demeanor was unhinged.
And Trump, if you’re going to be consistent. The difference is, no-one has accused Ford of any crime, and she’s not been investigated for anything.
Kavanaugh was investigated, what, 7 or 8 times by the FBI and nothing was turned up that disqualified him from being a judge. Trump and Hillary, on the other hand, are as innocent as OJ Simpson.
Oh, look, Shodan’s being a dishonest lying Republican again. But I repeat myself.
Kavanaugh lied under oath several times. His finances are suspicious----he had hundreds of thousands of dollars in country club fees and a mortgage also in the high six figures that got mysteriously paid off by some unnnamed benefactor, either of which disqualify him for the job.
But, sure, pretend that it’s okay to whine about a man being falsely accused while in actuality falsely accusing an innocent woman of lying.
Regards, margin
Um, no, you don’t get to lie to my face. The FBI limited investigation into Kavanaugh. New reporting details how FBI limited investigation of Kavanaugh allegations
Trump has told at least 13,000+ lies since taking office. Hillary has not done ANYTHING in the same universe as Trump, and that false equivalency in itself is misogynist and a great example of how Reichwing “men” falsely accuse her.
What about all the previous FBI investigations into him, that turned up absolutely nothing.
If anyone else had done what Hillary had done they would be in prison. Same with Trump. If your standard for innocence is “not as bad as Trump”, then empty all the fucking prisons right now. It’s hardly misogny to think that Hillary is the second-worst candidate for President, at least from a major party. Even with minor parties, you’d ahve to go back to 1968 to find anyone with a name anyone would recognise.
Between the two of them, the Clintons can count sexual abuse and attempts to cover it up, ties with dubious paedophiles, ties to dubious Russians, swindling charities, putting classified information at risk, perjury, and much, much more. Basically the same things Trump has been accused of, but to a lesser extent. So don’t fucking defend them, and don’t pretend that Hillary’s gender has anything to do with why people think she’s a despicable crook.
Brett Kavanaugh might have indulged in some underage drinking. Not really comparable.
And that was my original point about Blasey-Ford, and I believe it’s especially true when discussing a woman reporting sexual assault. You should take extra care before accusing her of malice in the report.
Are those crimes he is guilty of or reasons to consider him unqualified for the position? I’m not aware of the former, though I know there are calls to investigate him for perjury (which I previously alluded to when I mentioned future investigation.) As for the latter I think that’s reasonable; he seems to have lied about his college drinking habits and his involvement in past controversial legal matters. That at least brings his integrity into question.
Shodan, I’m quite sure you know you’re being untruthful throughout your last post, but there’s also the possibility that you’ve just bought into your own spin, so here goes.
Garland was rejected, by republicans, without consideration, (and you know this) because he was Obama’s pick.
QuickSilver almost certainly does not believe Garland’s rejection to be "an injustice, because `nobody is entitled to the job’ ". Like many people, myself included (and perhaps, in your heart of hearts, you yourself), QuickSilver likely believes Garlan’s rejection to be unjust or unfair because the Republicans refused to even hold a vote.
There’s no inconsistency in holding the belief that nobody is entitled to a seat on the supreme court and also that Garland’s purely partisan rejection was wrong. As I’m quite sure you understand.
I’m pretty sure you mean he didn’t sexualy assault anyone, which is something you can’t know and is in dispute.
What he did do is demonstrate a great fondness for beer, a tendency toward emotional instability under pressure, a reluctance to give straight and consistent answers when questioned, and a belligerent attitude when challenged. All in all, not a great performance in a job interview for such an important position. But hey, he still landed the job! (Brewskis!!)
That may be the reason why some Democrats pushed for an investigation, but there was evidence, as you know.
I hope you have the decency to accept that a good many people pushed for an investigation because of very real concerns over the allegations of sexual assault, regardless of political leanings.
Fortunate for who?
To my knowledge, there were no allegations made against Garland.
Again, he was rejected without a vote, without a hearing, and without consideration. Heck, he was rejected before he was even proposed.
There was no consideration given to anything he had or hadn’t done or said in the past, his character, his record, his politics, his merits or faults, or any allegations or rumours about him. And he sure as shit wasn’t rejected because of some well-established “Biden Rule”(R); Mitch McConnell himself admitted as much.
Perhaps you just misworded that comment?
As for Kavanagh, while partisan politics may well have played some part in the challenges made against him (not the accusations themselves), they certainly played a huge part in his confirmation. And in the challenges made against Kavanaugh, all the above-mentioned considerations denied to Garland where brought into play, whether partisan or not.
I am, perhaps unfairly, assuming that you, at least, do in fact understand that you are misrepresenting QuickSilver’s argument. And I assume you are doing so deliberately. But then, as I suggested earlier, it’s also possible that you’ve just bought into your own spin, through constant repetition. There are other possibilities.
Your “regards” sound ever more hollow with every such post of yours that willfully (I assume) mischaracterizes either the topic being discussed or the words of your fellow Dopers.
Poor show, man. Poor show.
Utter bullshit again.
1.“If anyone had done what Hillary had done…” She hasn’t done squat, but she HAS been investigated, while you Reichwingers whine that Trump is being oppressed. Another false accusation against Hillary.
- "Same with Trump…"How would you know? He slaps NDAs on everybody, SLAPPs them, goes after little guys.
Trump and Hillary are not remotely similar? Where are the six banktruptcies? Wanting to fuck her daughter?
- “If your standard for…” No WONDER you hate women. You are incapable of listening to women, you twist our words into lies that you WANT us to have said, and yet you project that we’re the ones lying.
Is it the English language? Let me tell you again: you are comparing an evil man to the woman he has falsely accused viciously for years. Got it now? Read that sentence again. Still not sure? When you minimize the evil a man does while falsely accusing a woman of worse (imaginary) behavior, you guilty of false equivalence.
-
“It’s hardly misogyny…” To lie about the most qualified and yet most falsely-accused Presidential candidate in decades. It’s kind of funny how ONLY Hillary makes you diet Nazis go apeshit. Just like Trump’s birtherism was pure racism, your demonization of Hillary speaks for itself.
-
“Between the two of them, the Clintons can count sexual abuse and attempts to cover it up, ties with dubious paedophiles, ties to dubious Russians, swindling charities, putting classified information at risk, perjury, and much, much more. Basically the same things Trump has been accused of, but to a lesser extent. So don’t fucking defend them, and don’t pretend that Hillary’s gender has anything to do with why people think she’s a despicable crook.”
Every LAST single thing here is a lie. And you know it’s all lies. It also neatly validates every accusation laid against you because the only thing missing is Qanon
- “Brett Kavanaugh…” Bullshit. AGAIN, you flinch away from his finances, his lies, his freakish public tantrum.
Deal with the facts or fuck off. I’m sick of your paranoid lies.
Wrong again, asshole. Your “opinion” is worthless because it isn’t even an opinion — your confused and nonsensical posts might as well be constructs from the TalkToTransformer.Com site.
For example, your lumping Kavanaugh with Garland is invalid on several grounds. There’s no point detailing those grounds — you have neither the interest nor the capacity to learn.
You get your wish, and rejoin Hurricane and Annoying among those too worthless to read. But the idea that I would be curious enough to ask others what you write shows remarkable lack of self-awareness.
And now SamualA is arguing that it’s possible that Ford forgot whether or not she consented. That she somehow remembers being traumatized by something she agreed to.
This is how bad things are. People are so willing to disbelieve accusers, they come up with this. Arguing they are lying isn’t working anymore, so they indirectly gaslight them. “No, honey. You consented. Don’t you remember?”
I had hoped this garbage was a thing of the past, here if not elsewhere. SamuelA was actually someone who never got on my ignore list, but now ignoring him is more than he deserves.
The more I see this rape apologia, the less I believe it could possibly be an honest mistake. Not even incels try this nonsense.