Kavanaugh- Alleged victim comes forward

[karel]

this is just a show for the dems,ffs her other witness backed out,that makes 2,lol.......like i said its just a show to stop the vote,i would of done the vote already,this lying ass women should of never got the air time,sad

[GabonX]

Weird, anyways... back on topic...

OK, fair enough.

Who saw the protester road show in Senator Grassley's office today? Do you think they travel with their own cardiologist?

What makes you think that one of those women couldn't be a cardiologist?

Their physiognomy shows they're not smart or hard working enough.

[karel]

they are obama left over welfare people

[saxitoxin]

they are obama left over welfare people

I didn't know Krispy Kreme accepted food stamps.

[Symmetry]

So- a recap of recent events:

Both Kavanaugh, and his victim will testify
Kavanaugh's buddy will not be subpoened
Republicans will likely try to avoid being tainted by questioning
One of the Republican PR crew for Kavanaugh quit because he sexually harassed women
Further FBI checks seem off the table for now

[GabonX]

So- a recap of recent events:

Both Kavanaugh, and his victim will testify
Kavanaugh's buddy will not be subpoened
Republicans will likely try to avoid being tainted by questioning
One of the Republican PR crew for Kavanaugh quit because he sexually harassed women
Further FBI checks seem off the table for now

Do you ever get tired of posting false and misleading information?

Kavanaugh's buddy will not be subpoened:
This isn't a recent event, the exact opposite, it's a non event. Nobody is being subpoenaed, including Ford's friend because there isn't sufficient rational to subpoena people to testify regarding an event that nobody recalls happening at an unidentified place at an unknown time.

Both Kavanaugh, and his victim will testify:
This presumes guilt without any evidence while everyone Ford has identified as being a witness, including a longtime female friend of hers', says it didn't happen.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/22/politics ... index.html

One of the Republican PR crew for Kavanaugh quit because he sexually harassed women:
More unverified accusations...

Further FBI checks seem off the table for now:
That's because claims of simple, aggravated and indecent assault fall outside the jurisdiction of the FBI, a fact which you're either willfully ignoring or too stupid to understand.


If absolute power is known to corrupt, creating a system where men can be torn down with nothing more than unverifiable accusations is a recipe for disaster.

[Symmetry]

So- a recap of recent events:

Both Kavanaugh, and his victim will testify
Kavanaugh's buddy will not be subpoened
Republicans will likely try to avoid being tainted by questioning
One of the Republican PR crew for Kavanaugh quit because he sexually harassed women
Further FBI checks seem off the table for now

Do you ever get tired of posting false and misleading information?

Kavanaugh's buddy will not be subpoened
:
This isn't a recent event, the exact opposite, it's a non event. Nobody is being subpoenaed, including Ford's friend because there isn't sufficient rational to subpoena people to testify regarding an event that nobody recalls happening at an unidentified place at an unknown time.

Both Kavanaugh, and his victim will testify
:
This presumes guilt without any evidence while everyone Ford has identified as being a witness, including a longtime female friend of hers', says it didn't happen.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/22/politics ... index.html

One of the Republican PR crew for Kavanaugh quit because he sexually harassed women
:
More unverified accusations...

Further FBI checks seem off the table for now:
That's because claims of simple, aggravated and indecent assault fall outside the jurisdiction of the FBI, a fact which you're either willfully ignoring or too stupid to understand.


If absolute power is known to corrupt, creating a system where men can be torn down with nothing more than unverifiable accusations is a recipe for disaster.

Some weird excuses there, Gabby.

1) The refusal to subpoena is pretty recent. Most of this is pretty recent, to be fair.
2) Testifying does not, as you claim, presume guilt.
3) No, the aide was actually forced to resign.
4) Background checks of Supreme Court nominees fall well within the purview of the FBI.

You done yet? Or can we expect more bizarre attempts at moving the goalposts?

[Neoteny]

More Kavanaugh rumblings. It's so weird that the evil antifa machinations stuffed full of mentally unstable Soros-funded harpies hell bent on derailing every God-fearing muscle man in the Republican party were so quiet during Gorsuch's nomination. They must have all been... sleeping?

Yeah, that must be it.

[GabonX]

1) This is nitpicking on your part at best. Not doing something is a non event, I'm not sure that qualifies as "refusing" but I'll concede this one.
2) You're the one that presumes guilt by stating by stating Both Kavanaugh, and his victim will testify as opposed to
Both Kavanaugh, and his accuser will testify.
3) The man hasn't been convicted of a crime
4) The FBI conducted multiple background checks on multiple occasions and they never turned up anything like this. When an FBI conducts a background check they look into criminal records of which there are none.

Even if this was a normal function of the FBI, there's no means to gather forensic evidence regarding an accusation like this decades after an alleged even. Unless the FBI doesn't has a time machine they can't chaperone a boy girl party which occurred during the 1980s.



It's a worthwhile video about how Ford's and leftoid demands pervert the criminal justice process and turn civil liberties on their head.

highly psychopathic women from the general population demonstrate a stronger correlation between psychopathic traits and self-perception as negotiation partner compared to men: they make more use of manipulation and perceive themselves as more powerful in negotiation situations.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 013-3902-9

[GabonX]

More Kavanaugh rumblings. It's so weird that the evil antifa machinations stuffed full of mentally unstable Soros-funded harpies hell bent on derailing every God-fearing muscle man in the Republican party were so quiet during Gorsuch's nomination. They must have all been... sleeping?

I would call it timing and strategy.

It's not like Feinstein was forthright with her knowledge of these accusations. She withheld them until the last minute, hoping to push the confirmation until after the November elections.

[Symmetry]

1) This is nitpicking on your part at best. Not doing something is a non event, I'm not sure that qualifies as "refusing" but I'll concede this one.
2) You're the one that presumes guilt by stating by stating Both Kavanaugh, and his victim will testify as opposed to
Both Kavanaugh, and his accuser will testify.
3) The man hasn't been convicted of a crime
4) The FBI conducted multiple background checks on multiple occasions and they never turned up anything like this. When an FBI conducts a background check they look into criminal records of which there are none.

Even if this was a normal function of the FBI, there's no means to gather forensic evidence regarding an accusation like this decades after an alleged even. Unless the FBI doesn't has a time machine they can't chaperone a boy girl party which occurred during the 1980s.



It's a worthwhile video about how Ford's and leftoid demands pervert the criminal justice process and turn civil liberties on their head.

highly psychopathic women from the general population demonstrate a stronger correlation between psychopathic traits and self-perception as negotiation partner compared to men: they make more use of manipulation and perceive themselves as more powerful in negotiation situations.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 013-3902-9

I think most of the previous discussion is kind of negated now that you're adding a new and slightly bizarre allegation that she is psychopathic. I realise you accepted your loss on point 1, and were going to lose on the other points, but this is kind of a weird tangent.

To be honest, it seems a little desperate, as if you're trying to portray Kavanaugh as some sort of persecuted victim of a bunny-boiler.

That just seems odd to me, perhaps you can personally explain what led you to think that way.

Generally speaking, it certainly looks like your slinging mud and hoping that some of it sticks at this point.

[Neoteny]

Lmao tfw Neo makes you pubmed a couple keywords.

highly psychopathic women from the general population demonstrate a stronger correlation between psychopathic traits and self-perception as negotiation partner compared to men: they make more use of manipulation and perceive themselves as more powerful in negotiation situations.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 013-3902-9

[[list]However, highly psychopathic women from the general population demonstrate a stronger correlation between psychopathic traits and self-perception as negotiation partner compared to men: they make more use of manipulation and perceive themselves as more powerful in negotiation situations.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 013-3902-9

women more often display a more relational and verbal form of aggression.51,52,56 This may, for instance, occur through manipulation of social networks in attempting to exclude the victim from a community.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3379858/[/list]

Just sayin...

Gender differences have been repeatedly demonstrated, especially in the assessment of antisocial behavior and the differentiation of borderline personality disorder and psychopathy which have to be addressed. Group comparisons based on these diagnostic methods found lower inhibitory deficits but less aggressive behavior in female participants with respect to the first main symptom category. For the second symptom category, emotional detachment, so far there are almost no findings reporting gender differences but only few direct gender comparisons have been carried out. However, highly psychopathic women from the general population demonstrate a stronger correlation between psychopathic traits and self-perception as negotiation partner compared to men: they (women) make more use of manipulation and perceive themselves as more powerful in negotiation situations.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 013-3902-9

women more often display a more relational and verbal form of aggression.51,52,56 This may, for instance, occur through manipulation of social networks in attempting to exclude the victim from a community.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3379858/

Adolescent girls often perpetrate aggression by gossiping and spreading rumours about others, by attempting to ruin relationships and by manipulating and excluding others. Further, males and females engage in reactive and proactive relational aggression differently.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4695776/

You look like a sophomore who has completed an assigned group reading of an abstract and has to shoehorn in "I recently read in a paper" into every conversation to make yourself look intelligent. We get it, Gabon, you don't know what psychopathy is or really understand any aspects of mental health. You needn't bash us with your copypasta.

More Kavanaugh rumblings. It's so weird that the evil antifa machinations stuffed full of mentally unstable Soros-funded harpies hell bent on derailing every God-fearing muscle man in the Republican party were so quiet during Gorsuch's nomination. They must have all been... sleeping?

I would call it timing and strategy.

It's not like Feinstein was forthright with her knowledge of these accusations. She withheld them until the last minute, hoping to push the confirmation until after the November elections.

Ah yes, the famous issue of timing where one justice is being rammed through while assault accusations fly left and right, while another sails through virtually unopposed after nearly a year of preparation after Republicans simply refuse to cooperate with appointing a Democrat supported judge. Must just be timing...

[GabonX]

Lmao tfw Neo makes you pubmed a couple keywords.

highly psychopathic women from the general population demonstrate a stronger correlation between psychopathic traits and self-perception as negotiation partner compared to men: they make more use of manipulation and perceive themselves as more powerful in negotiation situations.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 013-3902-9

[[list]However, highly psychopathic women from the general population demonstrate a stronger correlation between psychopathic traits and self-perception as negotiation partner compared to men: they make more use of manipulation and perceive themselves as more powerful in negotiation situations.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 013-3902-9

women more often display a more relational and verbal form of aggression.51,52,56 This may, for instance, occur through manipulation of social networks in attempting to exclude the victim from a community.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3379858/[/list]

Just sayin...

Gender differences have been repeatedly demonstrated, especially in the assessment of antisocial behavior and the differentiation of borderline personality disorder and psychopathy which have to be addressed. Group comparisons based on these diagnostic methods found lower inhibitory deficits but less aggressive behavior in female participants with respect to the first main symptom category. For the second symptom category, emotional detachment, so far there are almost no findings reporting gender differences but only few direct gender comparisons have been carried out. However, highly psychopathic women from the general population demonstrate a stronger correlation between psychopathic traits and self-perception as negotiation partner compared to men: they (women) make more use of manipulation and perceive themselves as more powerful in negotiation situations.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 013-3902-9

women more often display a more relational and verbal form of aggression.51,52,56 This may, for instance, occur through manipulation of social networks in attempting to exclude the victim from a community.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3379858/

Adolescent girls often perpetrate aggression by gossiping and spreading rumours about others, by attempting to ruin relationships and by manipulating and excluding others. Further, males and females engage in reactive and proactive relational aggression differently.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4695776/

You look like a sophomore who has completed an assigned group reading of an abstract and has to shoehorn in "I recently read in a paper" into every conversation to make yourself look intelligent. We get it, Gabon, you don't know what psychopathy is or really understand any aspects of mental health. You needn't bash us with your copypasta.

For somebody that needs a research paper to learn that manipulation and spreading rumors are expressions of female aggression, it's pretty amazing that you're an expert on female psychology all of a sudden. Most people, men and women included, don't need to see academic studies to verify this stuff. It's basic knowledge that anyone with a reasonable bank of experience with women knows intuitively.

Let me clarify, I'm repeating this information and will continue to do so for your benefit, because you asked for it, because you apparently lack this basic life experience with women.

[GabonX]

1) This is nitpicking on your part at best. Not doing something is a non event, I'm not sure that qualifies as "refusing" but I'll concede this one.
2) You're the one that presumes guilt by stating by stating Both Kavanaugh, and his victim will testify as opposed to
Both Kavanaugh, and his accuser will testify.
3) The man hasn't been convicted of a crime
4) The FBI conducted multiple background checks on multiple occasions and they never turned up anything like this. When an FBI conducts a background check they look into criminal records of which there are none.

Even if this was a normal function of the FBI, there's no means to gather forensic evidence regarding an accusation like this decades after an alleged even. Unless the FBI doesn't has a time machine they can't chaperone a boy girl party which occurred during the 1980s.



It's a worthwhile video about how Ford's and leftoid demands pervert the criminal justice process and turn civil liberties on their head.

highly psychopathic women from the general population demonstrate a stronger correlation between psychopathic traits and self-perception as negotiation partner compared to men: they make more use of manipulation and perceive themselves as more powerful in negotiation situations.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 013-3902-9

I think most of the previous discussion is kind of negated now that you're adding a new and slightly bizarre allegation that she is psychopathic. I realise you accepted your loss on point 1, and were going to lose on the other points, but this is kind of a weird tangent.

To be honest, it seems a little desperate, as if you're trying to portray Kavanaugh as some sort of persecuted victim of a bunny-boiler.

That just seems odd to me, perhaps you can personally explain what led you to think that way.

Generally speaking, it certainly looks like your slinging mud and hoping that some of it sticks at this point.

You're so smug, it's impossible to take you seriously. In case you haven't notice nobody here likes you accept the two or three most far left posters on this forum. I suspect the same rings true in your personal life.

I don't "accept a loss." I'll concede a single point because the difference between refusing to do something and choosing not to do something is so subtle and semantic I don't feel like arguing over the distinction.

If I've lost on all the other points, explain how you stating Both Kavanaugh, and his victim will testify is not presumption of guilt on your part.

[Symmetry]

GabonX- The thing is, the goalposts always move in your replies. In this case you don't believe her for one reason, then four, then concede one, then add another, then it's semantics that caused you to concede, then it's semantics that cause you to object again.

You're all over the place, mate.

What are your new points that we should discuss? As far as I can tell you only have two- that you now think she's a psychopath, and that you don't like people referring to her as a victim.

That just seems like a terrible pair of arguments.

[saxitoxin]

To recap:

ACCUSER FORD - says, as a high school student, Kavanaugh pushed her down on a bed at a party

Has named three witnesses to alleged shove:

* PJ Smyth - " I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."
* Mark Judge - "I have no memory of this incident."
* Leland Ingham Keyser - [via spokesman] "Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford."

No other evidence offered.

Accuser is a Democratic Party member undergoing long-term mental health treatment.

ACCUSER RAMIEREZ - says, as a college student, Kavanaugh once took his pants off at a party

Has named two witnesses to alleged exposure whom media have not identified by name:

* Unnamed witness X - "I don’t think Brett would flash himself to Debbie, or anyone, for that matter."
* Unnamed witness Y - "I have zero recollection [of this incident]."

Three people identified as Ramierez' university friends have issued a joint statement: "We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending."

No other evidence offered.

Accuser is a Democratic Party member who says she was extremely inebriated at the time and her memory of the incident might be foggy.

[GabonX]

GabonX- The thing is, the goalposts always move in your replies. In this case you don't believe her for one reason, then four, then concede one, then add another, then it's semantics that caused you to concede, then it's semantics that cause you to object again.

You're all over the place, mate.

This is an amazingly dishonest description of the conversation we just had. You're either a liar and a coward, or incredibly stupid or some combination of the three.

I'm very consistent here, to the point that I'm literally copying and pasting myself.

What are your new points that we should discuss? As far as I can tell you only have two- that you now think she's a psychopath, and that you don't like people referring to her as a victim.

That just seems like a terrible pair of arguments.

If she's making a false rape accusation to destroy a man's life she's psycho. It's that simple.

We're still waiting for you to explain how you stating "Both Kavanaugh, and his victim will testify" is not presumption of guilt on your part.

[Symmetry]

GabonX- The thing is, the goalposts always move in your replies. In this case you don't believe her for one reason, then four, then concede one, then add another, then it's semantics that caused you to concede, then it's semantics that cause you to object again.

You're all over the place, mate.

This is an amazingly dishonest description of the conversation we just had. You're either a liar and a coward, or incredibly stupid.

What are your new points that we should discuss? As far as I can tell you only have two- that you now think she's a psychopath, and that you don't like people referring to her as a victim.

That just seems like a terrible pair of arguments.

If she's making a false rape accusation to destroy a man's life she's psycho. It's that simple.

We're still waiting for you to explain how you stating Both Kavanaugh, and his victim will testify is not presumption of guilt on your part.

Wait, so you presume that I'm a liar, or a coward, or incredibly stupid. And you're making assumptions about whether she's a psychopath.

Dude, when your lines of thought fall apart you really go all in on the accusations, don't you? But you're still flinging mud and hoping that something sticks when your arguments fail, aren't you?

I see no evidence that she's lying. Liars don't tend to ask for the FBI to investigate their lies. Or volunteer to take polygraphs. Or talk about their lies years before, privately, to their therapists, long before it becomes relevant to a nomination to the Supreme Court. Hell, even a psychopath, as you suggest, wouldn't do that.

Sorry, mate, you've gone way off the rails with your accusations in this thread. What's next? Multiple Personalities for everyone involved? Or perhaps a visit to a psychiatrist yourself? It wouldn't be a bad idea...

[GabonX]

I know you'e a liar and a coward.

If you weren't you'd address how you stating "Both Kavanaugh, and his victim will testify" is not presumption of guilt on your part.

[Symmetry]

I know you'e a liar and a coward.

If you weren't you'd address how you stating "Both Kavanaugh, and his victim will testify" is not presumption of guilt on your part.

Yeah, that's the way to go, Gabon. Start with the "liar and coward" line and see if that wins people over. This isn't a trial, kiddo, and you know that Kavanaugh will never face one. So cut the crap. I think he rode out the statute of limitations on his privilege and the fear of his victim. Much like how it's playing out now. Much like how it's played out over and over and over and over again in other settings.

I believe her because the preponderance of evidence says she's telling the truth, and the refusal to call Kavanaugh's buddy and the refusal to call for further investigation says that the people who support Kavanaugh don't want this to be looked into any further. They know it would be damning.

How about you? Run out of places to move your goalposts yet?

[saxitoxin]

I believe her because the preponderance of evidence says she's telling the truth

Ford has named three witnesses to alleged shove:

* PJ Smyth - " I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."
* Mark Judge - "I have no memory of this incident."
* Leland Ingham Keyser - [via spokesman] "Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford."

No other evidence offered.

[thegreekdog]

Looks like everyone who is going to testify will do so on Thursday. Someone had the idea that the Republican senators should ask the accuser to recount the story and then not ask any questions. I kind of like this approach; it avoids the spectacle of a bunch of dudes lobbing questions at a woman who may have been sexually assaulted and puts the onus on the Democrats (and the accuser).

The more I read, the more I think these things didn't happen. My initial reaction was that it did happen but no one has been able to corroborate and this "bombshell" coming out yesterday that Kavanaugh allegedly exposed himself in college also does not appear to have any corroboration. And it should be clear: it's not just that there's no corroboration, it's that there are people saying "it didn't happen" and not just "I don't remember." One Democrat senator went on CNN (I think) and basically said "Because I think Kavanaugh wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, I think he doesn't respect women which makes me think he did these things he's being accused of." I mean, that's basically one of the two proofs being offered by Democrats at this point: (1) His politics are X therefore he must be a sexual assaulter; or (2) People he hung out with or went to school with did bad stuff, therefore he must have done bad stuff. Every other MeToo movement moment involves multiple accusers with corroborating evidence. That doesn't seem to exist here and many of the items put out there to show he's a bad guy have been debunked (e.g. that Yale would train women to dress a certain way for Kavanaugh clerkships - this was denied vehemently by all involved).

I will resubmit that this process has long-term negative ramifications for all involved. I hope the cycle of "oh yeah, we'll do the same thing to you" will stop but I'm not convinced given the increasing political polarization of the United States.

Ah yes, the famous issue of timing where one justice is being rammed through while assault accusations fly left and right, while another sails through virtually unopposed after nearly a year of preparation after Republicans simply refuse to cooperate with appointing a Democrat supported judge. Must just be timing...

Lots of differences between Kavanaugh and Gorusch. First, Gorusch was "replacing" a "conservative" justice. Kavanaugh would be "replacing" a "liberal" justice (who was nominated by a conservative, but whatevs). Second, there was less about Gorusch being anti-abortion; there is much more in terms of theories that Kavanaugh is anti-abortion (unsubstantiated and frankly incorrect given that conservatives are concerned Kavanaugh WON'T overturn Roe v. Wade). Third, there is a mid-term coming up in which the Dems have a 1 in 3 chance (according to fivethirtyeight) of winning the Senate and if the Dems win the Senate they can block and judicial nominees.

And again, all these Garland/Kavanaugh comparisons are just evidence of the "if you do it, I'll do it to you so you'd better watch out" stuff. The Democrats were crowing when they beat the system; now they are complaining that it's unfair when the Republicans do the same thing. I can't abide hypocrisy.

[Neoteny]

For somebody that needs a research paper to learn that manipulation and spreading rumors are expressions of female aggression, it's pretty amazing that you're an expert on female psychology all of a sudden. Most people, men and women included, don't need to see academic studies to verify this stuff. It's basic knowledge that anyone with a reasonable bank of experience with women knows intuitively.

Let me clarify, I'm repeating this information and will continue to do so for your benefit, because you asked for it, because you apparently lack this basic life experience with women.

Lol you seem confused, which isn't shocking in the slightest. Such is your life. I was just curious what "the literature is clear" meant in the addled mind of a bootlicker like yourself and I got back three random articles, one even in German (I learn more about you every day, Gabon), as evidence of a comprehensive body of work on woman-focused psychiatry. It was pretty underwhelming, but I said I wasn't really going to make a big deal about it, and I still won't. My curiosity has been satisfied, and my previous conclusions confirmed. You aren't proving anything by reposting it other than that you act like a child who has received a new toy. You can't wait to show it off to everyone.

My personal experience with women is that they express aggression in a variety of ways, just like men do,and that is affected by their social standing in a given situation. No need to label them all psychopaths just because they understand how societies work.

Ah yes, the famous issue of timing where one justice is being rammed through while assault accusations fly left and right, while another sails through virtually unopposed after nearly a year of preparation after Republicans simply refuse to cooperate with appointing a Democrat supported judge. Must just be timing...

Lots of differences between Kavanaugh and Gorusch. First, Gorusch was "replacing" a "conservative" justice. Kavanaugh would be "replacing" a "liberal" justice (who was nominated by a conservative, but whatevs). Second, there was less about Gorusch being anti-abortion; there is much more in terms of theories that Kavanaugh is anti-abortion (unsubstantiated and frankly incorrect given that conservatives are concerned Kavanaugh WON'T overturn Roe v. Wade). Third, there is a mid-term coming up in which the Dems have a 1 in 3 chance (according to fivethirtyeight) of winning the Senate and if the Dems win the Senate they can block and judicial nominees.

And again, all these Garland/Kavanaugh comparisons are just evidence of the "if you do it, I'll do it to you so you'd better watch out" stuff. The Democrats were crowing when they beat the system; now they are complaining that it's unfair when the Republicans do the same thing. I can't abide hypocrisy.

Man, you love running interference for these shitheads.

Tell me, Greek, why would the fact that Gorsuch was replacing a conservative prevent women from coming forward with allegations of assault? Pointing out the differences between the nominees is all well and good, but we are talking about assault allegations here. There are a couple ways to look at it here, and I'm absolutely shocked that you picked the red VS blue version since, after all, you really hate such partisanship, don't you? You like lists, right?

1. Red VS Blue: a woman is making these allegations, true or false, principally because the perceived balance of a political entity is being shifted.

2. Occam's razor: a woman willing to subject herself to the threats and harassment that are the standard response to accusing a public figure of misconduct is probably doing so out of concern for that person's judgment. A justice who doesn't have those accusations levied against him probably just didn't do it. That's probably the nicest thing I can say about Gorsuch.

3. Gabon is a chud and Saxi is Saxi: All women are psychopathic and manipulative by nature, and just lie compulsively. Gorsuch just got lucky?

Now, I suspect that when you brought up these differences, you really just wanted to talk about how the political parties are handling these allegations, because that's all you really seem to ever care about. I'm sure you can go on and on about Feinstein's motivations. But Saxi and Gabon here are diagnosing psychopathy over the internet and framing individual women and women as a whole as untrustworthy and manipulative just by nature. I want us to be clear about where we fall here. I suspect you are trying to play the emotionless android libertarian here, which, gross, but I can at least see the appeal, but I would like to know if you really think nobody accused Gorsuch of sexual misconduct simply because he was replacing the ghoulish Scalia and not the "liberal" (lol) Kennedy.

The Garland thing is just fun because Republicans did the same thing except the only reasoning was that he was a lib. It seems Dems only have the backbone when the conservative nominee is a total goblin like Kavanaugh.

[thegreekdog]

I mean, I said all this stuff already in this thread but appears to need repeating.

I love Gorusch and I'm not a big fan of Kavanaugh (for policy reasons). I think the White House should have pulled Kavanaugh a couple of weeks ago (or whenever these things came out) but, again, I'm not a fan. I'm not sure why I would look at this issue emotionally.

I believe the accuser believes that Kavanaugh assaulted her. I believe Kavanaugh when he says he didn't. Someone should investigate it (I would have pulled the nominee). The media is investigating it and have found nothing (except what I said above - basically engaging in a smear campaign against Kavanaugh). While I think the accuser would have come forward if this was Gorusch, everything that has happened since she came forward (the delay in the publication, the media campaign, etc.) is because this is the (perceived) swing vote at the Supreme Court and the mid-term elections. Everything that has happened since has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with the MeToo Movement or the relative power of women. And almost everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.

Also, I'm likely leaving the Libertarian party. They are becoming less serious, not more. I'd rather be a Never Trump Republican.