Ford vs Kavanugh

[WrongBaldy]

oh boy dem old menz
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https...8K23QsIJYuGRSg

[blah3]

"One thing that differentiates Democrats from Republicans is Democrats will do anything to advance their agenda, whereas Republicans might hold a vote."

This quote from the article is a textbook example of partisan speech. The context of the article isn't needed to condemn a political stance when the perception of the writer is to assume that reasonable discourse is not possible with those that disagree with you. Any effort to define a political party with absolution is suspect. The approach should be to see your political couterpart with equal standing at the beginning of the day, and the end.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

What if they aren't on the equal standing?
And what exactly is wrong with partisan speech in an opinion piece?>

[ravenmaniac4life]

What if they aren't on the equal standing?
And what exactly is wrong with partisan speech in an opinion piece?>

Citing an op-ed as proof of "partisan speech" is like citing an incomplete pass as proof that a bad throw was made by the QB.

BTW...they arent on equal standing and it's pretty obvious to anyone who's been paying attention (see the last 21 months).

Case in point...

Diane Feinstein is now blaming the media (DNC lobbying firm) for Ford's name coming out in public. The only problem is that only Democrats & their aides had access to the letter she wrote. Clearly Democrats leaked the letter and are now lying about it to cover their ass. So...either Diane gave the green light for the leak or she has no control her own people. Either way, Feinstein is a senile moron who is completely out of touch with reality.

Term limits please.

[PeterB58]

Dennis Prager made a great point about all of this. No matter how good and moral a life one has led for 10, 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years, it is all nullified by any unverifiable accused act as a child. No decent or rational society has ever believed such nihilistic nonsense.

Well, a couple of points:

1. I agree, up until a point. If I murdered someone at 16, I don't think that should be ignored. Granted, the accusation isn't that he murdered her. But sexual assault, at 17, if it happened, is not nothing.

2. Kavanaugh has unequivocally denied the accusation to the point of saying that he wasn't even at the alleged party. He better be telling the truth and/or his memory better be spot-on, because if any corroborating evidence comes out that indicates he was at the party with this woman, that would look like he's lying in the present (under oath, no less) and that is grounds for immediate disqualification, in my opinion.

BTW - the media has already started the old white men hate women narrative. Joy Blowhard on the view said it today.

Which is why the Republicans want lawyers to do the questioning. This will undoubtedly be a woman lawyer (and she better have a thick skin and no skeletons in her closet, because the media will rake her over the coals).

I still think Kavanaugh is in trouble.

Even if this women brings no new information to the table. If she testifies credibly as a woman that suffered through a sexual assault, a few Republican senators will bail on Kavanaugh in an instance. They don't care about a Supreme Court justice more than they care about winning their next election.

[ravenmaniac4life]

1. I agree, up until a point. If I murdered somewhat at 16, I don't think that should be ignored. Granted, the accusation isn't that he murdered her. But sexual assault, at 17, if it happened, is not nothing.

If anyone can just accuse someone of ANYTHING they want (murder, assault, robbery, etc) with no evidence and basically no specific memory of the details with multiple witnesses denying that it happened and 36 years after the fact...than that accusation is garbage and should be dismissed. Period.

In court, none of what's happening would pass the smell test and absolutley nothing would come of it. But...because Trump...this is given credibility and it's absolutely ridiculous and embarrassing. The ends justify the means.

[PeterB58]

If anyone can just accuse someone of ANYTHING they want (murder, assault, robbery, etc) with no evidence and basically no specific memory of the details with multiple witnesses denying that it happened and 36 years after the fact...than that accusation is garbage and should be dismissed. Period.

I agree. Except in this case, the facts have not yet been determined. Just a lot of he-said, she-said via the media. That is why you need the hearing.

In court, none of what's happening would pass the smell test and absolutley nothing would come of it. But...because Trump...this is given credibility and it's absolutely ridiculous and embarrassing. The ends justify the means.

This isn't court and Kavanaugh's life and liberty are not at stake.

[ravenmaniac4life]

I agree. Except in this case, the facts have not yet been determined. Just a lot of he-said, she-said via the media. That is why you need the hearing.

The facts? She wrote a letter and multiple accounts have been given by her and her DNC appointed lawyer regarding a party from 35 years ago attended by minors.

How is this relevant to anything?

Need a hearing? Ok. Let's say that someone who attended high school with RBG claims that she sexually assaulted someone back in 1921 (when she was in school)...does that accusation deserve a hearing?

[PeterB58]

The facts? She wrote a letter and multiple accounts have been given by her and her DNC appointed lawyer regarding a party from 35 years ago attended by minors.

No. The facts are what is presented under oath by both parties and whatever witnesses they wish to present. An independent investigation to validate whatever claims are made - did the party occur? was Kavanaugh present? would be helpful. If that is the FBI, so be it.

How is this relevant to anything?

If fence sitting Republicans determine (advise the President) that his nominee is not worth all this trouble, then they should just move on. That is the relevance. And I think we are very close to that point.

Need a hearing? Ok. Let's say that someone who attended high school with RBG claims that she sexually assaulted someone back in 1921 (when she was in school)...does that accusation deserve a hearing?

Is RBG Ruth Bader Ginsburg? No. She is already on the Supreme Court. Why would anyone care? Unless it is a criminal complaint. But even then, I think the Statute of Limitations would apply, so the criminal judicial system, by law, would not care.

[ravenmaniac4life]

No. The facts are what is presented under oath by both parties and whatever witnesses they wish to present. And independent investigation to validate whatever claims are made - did the party occur? was Kavanaugh present? would be helpful. If that is the FBI, so be it.

Do you expect someone from the Bethesda PD to go knocking on doors of all of the graduates of the schools in the area to find people who were at a party that may or may not have occurred around 1982 during the months of June/July/Aug?

What's there to investigate? Where's the evidence? 3 people have already denied this garbage.

What Federal crime was committed? The FBI doesnt investigate something simply because a DNC donor from Palo Alto demands it. What planet is this?

If fence sitting Republicans determine (advise the President) that his nominee is not worth all this trouble, then they should just move on. That is the relevance. And I think we are very close to that point.

Not worth all this trouble? If any Republican POTUS for the rest of US history nominates a SCJ...all the DNC has to do is manufacture an accusation from 30+ years prior and the nomination will fall. That's the precedent that's being set and pretending like this is credible is laughable.

Is RBG Ruth Bader Ginsburg? No. She is already on the Supreme Court. Why would anyone care?

For the same reasons they care about Kavanaugh.



Furthermore, have you seen Ford's DNC appointed lawyers' demands?

Please tell me in what universe the defendant is supposed to defend himself in a hearing before the accuser testifies in regards to what happened? This whole circus is pathetic and Ford has ZERO credibility with how this is being handled by Feinstein and by her lawyers. What a joke!

[blah3]

Is RBG Ruth Bader Ginsburg? No. She is already on the Supreme Court. Why would anyone care? Unless it is a criminal complaint. But even then, I think the Statute of Limitations would apply, so the criminal judicial system, by law, would not care.

She could be impeached.
Just as Cory Booker could be expelled from the Senate.

[PeterB58]

Do you expect someone from the Bethesda PD to go knocking on doors of all of the graduates of the schools in the area to find people who were at a party that may have occurred around 1982 during the months of June/July/Aug?

It is not a criminal complaint, so no.

What's there to investigate?

An allegation of a sexual assault.

What Federal crime was committed? The FBI doesnt investigate something simply because a DNC donor from Palo Alto demands it. What planet is this?

No federal crime was committed. But to lend credibility to the committee reviewing the allegation, some sort of 3rd party, independent (if possible) investigation should quickly proceed to ensure that (even if remote) there is not some evidence that lends credence to the allegation.

Not worth all this trouble? If any Republican POTUS for the rest of US history nominates a SCJ...all the DNC has to do is manufacture an accusation from 30+ years prior and the nomination will fall. That's the precedent that's being set and pretending like this is credible is laughable.

I never said it was credible. I don't know if it is credible. I am curious as to how you are so sure? And if you want senators that don't fold the instance someone brings up sexual assault allegations, or immediately assume they are true, then elect them.

[PeterB58]

She could be impeached.
Just as Cory Booker could be expelled from the Senate.

Which would require political will by a majority of the senate....which is the issue here.