Potomac. He’s a DC kid - like me - so he’s on the Potomac.
Honestly, he and I are the same age and both went to high-end private schools in the area. I fear I may have played against him in sports at one time or another. I know my school played Georgetown Prep in many sports.
This is blatantly, stupid and wrong.
Democrats DO indeed hold the high ground here. Democrats wanted sexual misconduct investigated and heard as part of the hearing. The Republicans wanted to shove the nominee up the ass of the entire country without hearing any of it and they tried to stop investigations at every turn.
Democrats are actively searching for the truth.
Republicans want to confirm a proven liar.
Democrats aren’t playing a “game”. They have shown again and again that they want the truth. Republicans have shown again and again that they want to cover up the truth.
It’s not impossible that this is the reason. But the reason that the Democrats in Congress are treating it as credible is because they oppose Kavanaugh on partisan grounds. As I said, if and when allegations with the same level of evidence are made against a liberal nominee, the sides will flip-flop instantly. That’s not something that can be cited, but it is true nonetheless.
I am not sure what you want. This is what’s happening now. If it works, it will happen more. That seems a truism.
Well, your side is made up in part of people who are willing to use unsubstantiated allegations to destroy a man’s reputation, for partisan reasons. The next time a liberal is nominated, that will be true of my side (probably). Is that any clearer?
Like I said, the definition of “credible” will change when it’s a liberal. This will be hotly denied, but it is the case nonetheless.
Regards,
Shodan
I see no reason to believe this is the case. This liberal will be ecstatic if every allegation is fully investigated. Sexual assault is an utterly massive problem in our society – as a society we treat victims and survivors like utter crap – and this goes far, far beyond politics (I was the first, or one of the first, on this board, to call for Al Franken to resign). I’d happily trade political losses for society treating sexual assault allegations seriously across the board.
THIS.
I don’t want ANY sexual predator ANYWHERE in our government. EVER.
Republicans have shown they not only don’t care if sexual predators are in their party, they double, triple down on defending them.
It’s reprehensible.
Cite?
Alternately?
Birth Certificate
The Clinton’s murdered Vince Foster
Swiftboat
The R side invented the politics of personal destruction. Don’t whine if it turns back on them.
Also, coincidentally, it’s also the right thing to do - when someone accuses someone we’re considering for a lifetime position of national prominence of a serious crime, investigation is the least we should do.
Bolding mine. Translation: “I take it on faith.” You don’t know that it’s true. In fact, given how the various sides have reacted to #MeToo accusations, we have good reason to believe it’s not true. Accusations of sexual assault, harassment, or the like have brought down numerous democrats and republicans. Many of them resigned. No democrat has received significant aid from the party machinery. There has yet to be a single significant case since #MeToo started where the democrats have put their lot in with someone accused of sexual assault. (The same cannot be said of the republicans, where Donald Trump took office with 13 women accusing him of sexual assault the number has risen to 22 since then and Roy Moore barely lost in Alabama because of accusations that he had a habit of going after teenagers - without losing Trump’s support.)
And, on a more personal note, here’s a third liberal, out of the three responding, who thinks you’re dead wrong, and who wouldn’t want his party to make that mistake.
No. What I want is evidence that this is what’s happening now. If you’re going to go around calling it a “playbook”, or alleging that republicans will “never get another nominee confirmed” if this succeeds, you need some evidence. I’m not sure how this is a hard concept, but if you also take it completely on faith that a similar allegation would lead to liberals circling the wagons, well, clearly your standards of evidence aren’t the highest.
The problem being, “it” may be “coming forward against someone who committed sexual assault before they take power” or “creating false allegations against someone before they take power”. You seem to insist it’s the second, despite all the reasons given here; please explain why.
:rolleyes:
So it turns out rape is really hard to substantiate. It’s hard to come forward, it’s unlikely that you’ll be taken seriously, and even if there is real physical evidence, that may not matter because of police failures and you’ll still have to establish that it wasn’t consensual. Women are coming out of the woodwork to explain why they never came forward against their rapists. Hell, there’s quite a few here on the Dope. You should read - just read, please for the love of god do not ask them to relitigate their fucking trauma - their accounts. This is why this kind of allegation needs to be taken seriously. It took how many years and how many victims before Cosby was brought to justice? Before we even heard about Cosby being a prolific serial rapist? This is the kind of shit we’re talking about. This is why claims of sexual assault are different.
…On the other hand, did you see what happened when James O’Keefe tried to sting the Washington Post with someone falsely accusing Roy Moore of sexual assault? The story kinda fell apart. That hasn’t happened here. Weird, right? Maybe she’s just being coached better. :rolleyes:
So is this a walkback from your previous position, or…? Because it sure seems like a walkback. Is the claim that such an uncorroborated claim will be taken seriously? If so: good! I hope it would be! I hope the response would be to pull the nominee and move on to the next one - there are plenty of qualified jurors in America, even right-wing partisans who hate Roe v. Wade, and many of them didn’t even throw a nasty, dishonest temper tantrum on live TV, let alone get accused of sexual assault before being nominated. Or, y’know, whatever the liberal equivalent would be.
In retrospect, this thread was clearly a mistake. I might as well have started a thread asking why Trump didn’t think a transition team was necessary. :mad: Pro tip: if you know it’s going to be hotly denied, why not offer some goddamn evidence?
It wouldn’t necessarily have to be a woman “recruited” at all. There are no doubt some women who are rabidly pro-right or pro-left that they’d be willing to voluntarily go out on a kamikaze false-accusation mission to take down a prominent D or R.
Such people haven’t appeared yet, but that’s like saying, “No president’s been assassinated since JFK” - there are would be assassins/false-accusers who’d seriously contemplate it.
Note that I am not saying Ford is lying, but rather, that there are indeed women who’d probably be so diehard that they’d willingly falsely smear someone if it means taking down an opposition presidential candidate something. All it takes is one.
Yeah, I remember how the Dems dug in their heels defending Al Franken, and he only resigned in the face of overwhelming Republican pressure. :rolleyes:
Okay.
First problem: this isn’t fucking happening. Like, Kavanaugh seems like pretty much a black swan when it comes to this precise kind of accusation.
Second problem: It’s a supreme court nominee, and Ford tried to get her accusations to the press before he was nominated.
Third problem: Trump was accused by 13 people and still won; there’s no reason to believe this would actually matter anywhere near as much as you might think.
It’s possible that this kind of thing could happen. No evidence it has or does, but it could. There’s no evidence it’d succeed, Kavanaugh is an unbelievably poor target for it, and it isn’t happening yet, but it could happen.
Not sure what this means or why it helps your case, but hey, sure, you have a small point.
Because adults do not need to pander so to children.
The glorious adult in the room is condescending to participate in this charade. Is this not enough? Must you now throw a tantrum to demonstrate puerile insolence and solidify your position as a puling brat?
The adult has used the polite language, dispensed the sagacious wisdom, and warned you of the error of your ways, and still you want more?
At long last, child, have you no decency?
[/sarcasm]
Real talk: The assholes are at the Mindless Nonsense stage. That’s Stage Two, right behind Utter Silence and right ahead of Humiliating Defeat. They’re going to spout utter bullshit and easily-disproven lies in the calm, even tone of voice which they think makes them proof against accusations of being utter bullying shitheads, because they have no concept that bullying is about right and wrong, not polite versus impolite. As they drone on, more and more people figure out they have no real argument, they inexorably lose ground, and they collapse in utter defeat.
We saw this happen with the marriage equality campaign.
The allegations against Franken were not at the same level of evidence as they are for Kavanaugh, were they?
Because there is no good evidence that it’s the first. I think that’s been explained adequately. If you need to know why, that’s why.
Regards,
Shodan
When Franken was accused of misconduct, as far as I can tell, the evidence consisted of several women saying that they had been kissed or groped by Franken, and there was one photo of him pretending to grope a woman who was asleep while he mugged for the camera.
An interesting contrast is that when his first accuser went public with the story of him on the USO tour, Mitch McConnell immediately called for an Ethics Committee investigation, saying: “As with all credible allegations of sexual harassment or assault, I believe the Ethics Committee should review the matter… Regardless of party, harassment and assault are completely unacceptable — in the workplace or anywhere else.”
Odd how when 49 Democrats ask for an investigation of a sexual assault, the request is ignored. And when one Republican asks for it, the request is approved.
Are you saying there’s good evidence it’s the second? If not, then why are you insisting that it’s the second?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Therefore, what, then, should be done with the allegations against Kavanaugh? Would the answer apply to any political appointee? People in general?
I personally want Ford to go to prison, if she’s lying. I want the FBI to investigate fully; and just as there were records of our President’s lying about sexual contact with Daniels, there would likely be some record of Ford’s lies. Maybe she talked with someone about her plan to smear Kavanaugh. Maybe she Googled “how to get away with a false accusation.” Maybe she bragged on Facebook about some vague plan of hers. Maybe George Soros’s bank account wired $500,000 to her account in August.
Some record almost certainly exists of her lies. If she’s lying.
And that’s why a full investigation should happen–because nobody should get away with false accusations of rape.
But if she’s not lying, nobody should get away with attempted rape, either.
There’s no possibility in which an investigation is a bad idea.
True, but it has to be a very particular one for the accusation to stand up under scrutiny. I mean, if I were to fabricate a story about being sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh, I expect it would take very little investigation to establish that I was lying – and I grew up in and still frequently visit the same metro area where Kavanaugh has lived for most of his life, so it’s more plausible that my path would have crossed his than it is for a good 95% of the population. You pretty much need a woman who actually HAS met the person she’s accusing, or whose movements match up with his well enough that she could have done so. If your false accuser is not someone who has actually had frequent contact with him, you need to decide exactly where and when the assault took place, and one slip-up causes the whole story to fall apart. If it is someone who plausibly had regular contact with him – say, a high-school or college classmate who might have attended many of the same social events over a period of years – your task gets a lot easier, but the odds of having contemporaneous witnesses who will contradict the story goes way up, and you have to find a bona fide classmate willing to make a false accusation in the first place.
It’s not impossible, but it’s also a lot harder than it sounds. One of Roy Moore’s accusers was making up her story for partisan political reasons (to discredit the other accusers, as it happens, rather than to smear Moore). She went to the Washington Post with her story, and, trained journalists that they are, they had little difficulty ascertaining not only that she was lying, but who had put her up to it.
Well, the 2000 Election *was *stolen. I dont blame Scotus however.
Really, perjury? :rolleyes:
Look, when the Dems want to attack people, they ridicule the candidates. They don’t make shit up. They blow facts out of proportion in some cases. Yes, in some cases they bring in allegations of sexual misconduct but so do the Republicans. Remember Bill Clinton? Was that so long ago? Actually, it was quite recent since on my FB feed, I have seen plenty of GOP “whataboutsim” mentioning the Clintons and others.
The GOP simply makes shit up- Obama is a secret muslim, Birtherism, Swiftboating. Or they bring in the Kremlin to fix the elections by spamming Facebook or actual tampering. Or they go for Jim Crow laws to stop people from voting. “Whataboutism”. That’s the “Republican Playbook”, and it’s well known and recognized. Big Lies.
So “Democratic Playbook”-:dubious:* It is to laugh. *:rolleyes: