|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 23, 2018 17:59:07 GMT -5
This guy...Jesus, what a fucking chickenshit gutless WUSS.
Go away, Jeff Fake. Go for a long walk on a short shark-infested beach. Go slather barbecue sauce all over your naked body and jump in a cage full of lions. Go spread honey all over yourself and tie yourself to an African ant colony. Go strap yourself to two Peterbilt 18-wheelers going north and south and see what happens. Go model dad jeans on QVC or do gay-4-pay porn as a catcher, not a pitcher.
Just GO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2018 18:32:51 GMT -5
I have often defended Flake, but, yes, I had this same reaction to his statements on the View. I'm deeply disappointed in him.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Oct 23, 2018 23:11:27 GMT -5
I have often defended Flake, but, yes, I had this same reaction to his statements on the View. I'm deeply disappointed in him. How could you possibly be disappointed in him? He did exactly what he always does. He always talks big but in the end goes right along with the flow. To be disappointed in Flake means you had to have faith in Flake. Having faith in Flake is insane if the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 4, 2018 10:01:19 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 11:14:08 GMT -5
I just don't understand why she would have been reluctant to come forward. I mean, obviously she only made this shit up because she wanted the awesome attention:
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 3, 2019 10:01:10 GMT -5
This is an interesting piece: 21 Reasons Not To Believe Christine Blasey Ford’s Claims About Justice KavanaughI'm not saying it's interesting because it makes me doubt Ford. I still find here story to be quite credible and all of the reasons in the above piece don't really change things for me. But...I was watching, listening, and reading as all if this went down in real time. What makes the above piece interesting--to me--is considering how it might look 10+ years from now. Imagine people talking about this brouhaha in 2030 or so, people who were kids or the like when this all went down. Their opinions would necessarily be shaped to some degree by the info they found about the accusations and the hearings, right? The Federalist piece is not a pack of lies, at all. If I knew nothing about all of this, then read the piece and then researched some of its claims--which are basically true--I think I might be inclined to see things a different way, particularly if it was 2030 or later and nothing new had come out about the incidents or the like.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 3, 2019 19:32:46 GMT -5
This is an interesting piece: 21 Reasons Not To Believe Christine Blasey Ford’s Claims About Justice KavanaughI'm not saying it's interesting because it makes me doubt Ford. I still find here story to be quite credible and all of the reasons in the above piece don't really change things for me. But...I was watching, listening, and reading as all if this went down in real time. What makes the above piece interesting--to me--is considering how it might look 10+ years from now. Imagine people talking about this brouhaha in 2030 or so, people who were kids or the like when this all went down. Their opinions would necessarily be shaped to some degree by the info they found about the accusations and the hearings, right? The Federalist piece is not a pack of lies, at all. If I knew nothing about all of this, then read the piece and then researched some of its claims--which are basically true--I think I might be inclined to see things a different way, particularly if it was 2030 or later and nothing new had come out about the incidents or the like. Some of the things in that list are so dumb I can't believe anyone would point to them as evidence of anything (like the calendar thing). Granted, one could argue that the totality of issues should still be enough to raise some doubts. Of course, that's true in a lot of sexual assault cases, which is part of why sexual assaults happen way, way, way more often than convictions for sexual assault. IMO, in the case of supreme court appointments, it's fair to prioritize the integrity of the institution over all else, even if that means valid candidates sometimes don't get confirmed. Why should anyone want Kavanaugh on the court for life when he may have done exactly what he's accused of, when there are other people out there who could do the job just as well, without all the baggage? Unless I was pretty near certain that the claims were bullshit, I don't want people accused of serious crimes sitting on the supreme court. (And honestly, Kavanaugh's testimony during the hearings only cemented my feeling that he shouldn't have been confirmed.)
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 3, 2019 21:15:20 GMT -5
My opinion hasn't changed: I don't think Kavanaugh should have been confirmed because I find Ford's accusations credible.
But that's not the point I'm making. I arrived at the above conclusion because I watched/read/heard the specifics as they came to light (more or less). And I think that my opinion is shared by a ton of other people. But in reading the above piece, it occurred to me that down the road, Ford might very well come across as less credible to people newly exposed to these events, simply because it's easy to fashion a list of points like the one in the above piece, a list which is hard to overcome with a contrary list. Sure, when can always say the office deserved the benefit of the doubt, and that's all good and well. But I just can't help but fear that Ford will not come off well as the events recede into the past. Avenatti's bullshit won't help much either.
But it's just an observation. I could be wrong. I'll have a poll on the matter in another 15 years or so.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Dec 3, 2019 21:43:48 GMT -5
I think this is a no-win scenario. "Credible" here means what? What she says sounds like something that very much might have happened, but she has no supporting evidence, and couldn't even prove there was a party or that Kavanaugh was there. Her own friend doubts the story. On the one hand, if it's true, this man should be nowhere near the SC. On the other hand, if it's not, and the nomination was killed, doesn't that send the message of guilty until proven innocent? I wish that the accusations could have been vetted privately and his name withdrawn to allow someone else's name put in. Once it was made public, if he pulled out many would have seen it as an admission of guilt. (Some, of course, are convinced he is guilty and won't be convinced otherwise no matter what.) I don't know if another President was in the White House if telling them about the accusation and having the nomination killed that way would have been viable. If Obama had nominated someone who was accused of sexual assault from when they were a teen, and nobody but the accuser could remember the party or place the accused there, would he have pulled them?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 4, 2019 1:02:51 GMT -5
On the other hand, if it's not, and the nomination was killed, doesn't that send the message of guilty until proven innocent? That might be arguable, but in this context, I don't think it's such a bad thing. In a confirmation process (or an election, for that matter), the burden of proof doesn't need to be weighted the same way as in a criminal trial, IMO. Was it unfair that Roy Moore lost his senate race? I mean, obviously he'd never been convicted of anything. But if people think you might have done what you're accused of, you have to accept that you're going to face consequences if you're seeking a public office. Kavanaugh's situation would not have been anything special, IMO, if he'd been denied a seat on the SCOTUS because of Ford's accusation. People have lost court seats (and other high positions) for far worse reasons plenty of times.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Dec 4, 2019 9:59:46 GMT -5
On the other hand, if it's not, and the nomination was killed, doesn't that send the message of guilty until proven innocent? That might be arguable, but in this context, I don't think it's such a bad thing. In a confirmation process (or an election, for that matter), the burden of proof doesn't need to be weighted the same way as in a criminal trial, IMO. Was it unfair that Roy Moore lost his senate race? I mean, obviously he'd never been convicted of anything. But if people think you might have done what you're accused of, you have to accept that you're going to face consequences if you're seeking a public office. Kavanaugh's situation would not have been anything special, IMO, if he'd been denied a seat on the SCOTUS because of Ford's accusation. People have lost court seats (and other high positions) for far worse reasons plenty of times. Roy Moore was looking for an elected position. Any person could be against him for whatever reason and not need to justify it. Kavanaugh was an appointment. The question is does an unproven accusation that you just have 1 persons word from that many years ago and nobody can even put Kav on the scene allow us to derail an appointment? Is that acceptable? If a president liked by many nominated a woman for the SC who was accused of misconduct from decades ago and there was no proof beyond the accusers testimony, would we be okay removing that nomination? Are we sure that precedent won't be abused?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 4, 2019 19:08:14 GMT -5
Sure, Moore was running for an elected position. But I'm not sure that's such an important distinction. If anything, you could argue that one should be even more cautious w/ putting people on the Supreme Court, since it's a lifetime appointment, and senators are only elected for six years.
Should an unproven allegation derail an appointment? Well, to me, the word "unproven" is a bit of a red herring, insofar as any criminal accusation that comes up during a confirmation is likely to be unproven, regardless of what it is or how plausible it is. And again, if it's a confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court seat, I don't think the burden of proof needs to be treated the same as in a criminal trial. If you're in a criminal trial and you get convicted of a crime you didn't commit and you go to jail, that's a big deal. Not getting a seat on the supreme court is not a big deal. It happened to Douglas Ginsburg, it happened to Merrick Garland, it will probably happen again. Kavanaugh still would've had his seat on the circuit court.
So yeah, I have no problem w/ derailing an appointment because of an accusation that might not be true. If I felt an accusation was certain or near certain not to be true, that's different. If I felt an accusation was extremely far-fetched, or the testimony of the accuser had serious issues of some kind, that's different. But here? No. I would've very comfortably voted no on his confirmation.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Dec 4, 2019 23:02:28 GMT -5
I think what happened is exactly how it should happen.
The accuser gets to tell their story, the accused responds, the Senate hears and decides.
|
|