I agree with this read 100%.
Still waiting on the “true is true” answer about Ford just accusing Kavanaugh of holding her down a bit.
We’ve reached Sam_Stone levels of obfuscating and talking around the facts to promote a partisan approach that calls the victim of sexual assault either an idiot or a liar, because Kavanaugh has definitely shown himself to be an upstanding member of society who can keep calm when someone has the audacity to question literally anything about him.
Please, holding judges to the standard of “having a judicial temperament” is a bridge too far!
/sarcasm
Hey I’ve got a new analogy. Suppose that there was a man who had a son who had a drug problem, was found to be behind on his taxes (which he eventually paid back) and at one point owned at lap top. What jobs should this man be deemed as unsuitable to hold from holding despite the fact that there is no tangible evidence of any sort that he himself actually did anything wrong. Should we, for example, suggest that he is unfit for the presidency because it might be that the international conspiracy]but by going states evidence to the CIA he had managed to get the charges reduced to tax crimes? Or would that be too partisan. What if the son had a gold tooth?
But seriously forget about Kavanaugh, he isn’t why you are being pitted. Answer the question Yes or No. Do you really believe that a woman can’t tell the difference between a drunken fall and the drunk trying to take their clothes off against their will?
Prohibited by who?
~Max
Presumably by the people voting against him. Just like Kavanaugh should have been prevented by the Senate members voting against him.
I know you don’t mean the electoral college.
~Max
I see that my pitting of Dinsdale has been upstaged by the considerably more enthusiastic pitting of Sage_Rat, and that’s fine. Carry on.
I just want to say to @Dinsdale that if you want to respond to a pitting, do it here. Don’t write some vapid nonsensical defense in the original thread where no one knows what the hell you’re referring to. I suppose I could respond to your second idiotic post here, but I’m not doing that. I’m pretty sure that ongoing cross-post conversations between regular forums and the Pit would be frowned upon here. So make your arguments here, or fuck off and don’t make them at all.
I’m not sure what point you are trying to drill down to. My post was clearly a riff on Sage_Rats penchant for off the wall analogies while also pointing out his double standard when it comes to the relationship between partisanship and requirements for evidence, and so as such should be viewed as satire rather than an actual proposal.
That’s too bad. Like Sage_Rat, you made a bad analogy. Unlike Sage_Rat, exposing the obvious flaw in your analogy supports your position. I thought this was intentional. Apparently I was wrong.
The electoral college is widely understood to be a body of delegates, and when faithless electors espouse a Burkean ideology, they are derided, fined, or even replaced. Whereas the Senate is sometimes thought of as, ideally, a Burkean institution, and Senators who eschew (ostensible) personal principles and defer to their party-line “mandate” are often derided.
~Max
I thought this thread was for people thought of as redeemable rather than those who deserve a pit thread dedicated specifically to them, because they are not going to change. Like Dinsdale and now Sage Rat.
But I haven’t been around regularly and could have it wrong.
It was that originally, but threads evolve, and mild, half-hearted criticism of redeemables isn’t as much fun as full-on pitting.
Sometimes people seem to be redeemable, until they come here and show their ass.
this is true, and I need to be mindful not to get addicted to the outrage. 
Sage Rat: I am having trouble not wishing that a drunk man much larger than you pins you to a bed, grinds his hips against you, fumbles with your clothes and then you get to listen to people speculating about how it all might be accidental some how because we weren’t in the room.
I don’t see how you can possibly be this dumb so it must be some other fuckery.
so I will be putting you on ignore and then you don’t exist anymore. only wish we had that option IRL!
ETA: I can only do it for a year? geez
[Moderating]
Wishing sexual assault on other posters is against board rules. Do not do this again.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
Nope, you can do it forever! You have to scroll down further in the duration though.
ETA details: I normally go through the system settings because sometimes a person you want to ignore has a private profile so:
Click on your user icon in upper right (depending display/theme chosen), click on profile, click on preferences, click on users, under users you can see a section for ignore, click on the + to add an ignore, type the poster name, select a duration [scroll all the way to the bottom for forever].
Scroll down more. 
But why is your profile hidden? That’s one of the warning signs of a troublesome poster, because it takes an extra step to ignore them.
Wasn’t that the default with the port over from vBulletin? I think a lot of users are set to hidden. Hard for me to tell/remember as I’ve been a moderator almost the entire Discourse time.
And kind of racist