Kavanaugh Confirmation

#3,076
#3,076
#3,087
#3,087
lawgator1 said:
Nice try.

He's attacking her saying that a 15 year old who would be traumatized by almost being raped or worse did not call the police. Dude, seriously. Even you can see the flaw in that comment.
Click to expand...

The me too movement has gone astray, but it was originally supposed to be about empowering women to come forward.

The fact that that original purpose resonated with so many women puts these “why didn’t she come forward sooner” arguments in a dim light. Clearly, most women didn’t and don’t feel comfortable stepping forward about these things.

Reading back over the last 50 or so pages of this thread begs the question how anyone would ever feel like coming forward about sexual assault could be worth it, when the accused is in any way respectable.

Most here on both sides have already made up their minds about who is telling the truth and interperet, twist, or make up purported facts to favor their argument. You know that’s exactly what’s going to happen in Congress. Why would anybody volunteer to be the rope in that tug-of-war?

The whole thing has been ****ed up from the moment some democrat slipped this info to the media, which was clearly done to force Ford to come forward, hoping it would delay the vote or that the republicans would turn off women everywhere with their predictably reptilian attempts to wriggle their wait out from under it.

Meanwhile, there has been shockingly little debate over his actual positions. (None here that I can find.) So why is everyone debasing themselves over this guy? Hard to imagine it’s because they trust the political hacks in Washington. I can only assume it’s out of spite.

That’s your sad commentary on our electorate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: newarkvol
#3,091
#3,091
RockyTop85 said:
The me too movement has gone astray, but it was originally supposed to be about empowering women to come forward.

The fact that that original purpose resonated with so many women puts these “why didn’t she come forward sooner” arguments in a dim light. Clearly, most women didn’t and don’t feel comfortable stepping forward about these things.

Reading back over the last 50 or so pages of this thread begs the question how anyone would ever feel like coming forward about sexual assault could be worth it, when the accused is in any way respectable.

Most here on both sides have already made up their minds about who is telling the truth and interperet, twist, or make up purported facts to favor their argument. You know that’s exactly what’s going to happen in Congress. Why would anybody volunteer to be the rope in that tug-of-war?

The whole thing has been ****ed up from the moment some democrat slipped this info to the media, which was clearly done to force Ford to come forward, hoping it would delay the vote or that the republicans would turn off women everywhere with their predictably reptilian attempts to wriggle their wait out from under it.

Meanwhile, there has been shockingly little debate over his actual positions. (None here that I can find.) So why is everyone debasing themselves over this guy? Hard to imagine it’s because they trust the political hacks in Washington. I can only assume it’s out of spite.

That’s your sad commentary on our electorate.
Click to expand...
It's the Marxist party who chose to politicize this. Just as they do with everything. They have no shame
 
#3,094
#3,094
RockyTop85 said:
The me too movement has gone astray, but it was originally supposed to be about empowering women to come forward.

The fact that that original purpose resonated with so many women puts these “why didn’t she come forward sooner” arguments in a dim light. Clearly, most women didn’t and don’t feel comfortable stepping forward about these things.

Reading back over the last 50 or so pages of this thread begs the question how anyone would ever feel like coming forward about sexual assault could be worth it, when the accused is in any way respectable.

Most here on both sides have already made up their minds about who is telling the truth and interperet, twist, or make up purported facts to favor their argument. You know that’s exactly what’s going to happen in Congress. Why would anybody volunteer to be the rope in that tug-of-war?

The whole thing has been ****ed up from the moment some democrat slipped this info to the media, which was clearly done to force Ford to come forward, hoping it would delay the vote or that the republicans would turn off women everywhere with their predictably reptilian attempts to wriggle their wait out from under it.

Meanwhile, there has been shockingly little debate over his actual positions. (None here that I can find.) So why is everyone debasing themselves over this guy? Hard to imagine it’s because they trust the political hacks in Washington. I can only assume it’s out of spite.

That’s your sad commentary on our electorate.
Click to expand...
It's poor reasoning to compare the response to a 30 year old accusation, timed to be politicized and stop a SC nomination, to the responses to an average claim of sexual assault. Don't be ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt2496
#3,097
#3,097
volfanjustin said:
You are right, alleged victims should wait 36 years to tell someone
Click to expand...

First, there is apparently testimony she did tell people at the time. There is definitely testimony that she told people about it six years ago, long before K was a nominee for the S.Ct.

Second, my point was that just because someone waits to tell someone in authority about it does not mean it did not occur.

Saw someone make the interesting point the other day that when men claim they were sexually abused by priests 20-30 years ago, but did not report it until now, everyone believes them. But there is a recoil that the woman is pulling a fast one. Interesting point.



Orange_Crush said:
He questioned her story. And it's a legitimate question for a politicized accusation, 30 years removed, when she's not been able to provide any facts, much less evidence. And the dems knew this They've been waiting for someone to ask the questions that must be asked so they could use this situation for political theater. So spare us.

Bill raped women, Hillary publicly demonized his victims, king Kennedy sank one to the bottom of a lake and is praised to this day.

Save it for those who refuse to pay attention or are to whipped to call you out.
Click to expand...


It is a legitimate question for the Senate to ask at a hearing, sure. Not so much for the President to tweet about. Especially a President with such a long and storied past of using and abusing women, paying some of them off and insulting the rest.


1972 Grad said:
What does "almost raped or worse" mean? Was she touched down there? Was she touched up there? Were her clothes pulled off? Did the boys get their pee pees out? Since you apparently were there, what exactly happened?
Click to expand...


I think the basics of her story are well known. If you think that lack of actual rape means no harm, no foul, that's pretty pathetic.
 
#3,098
#3,098
lawgator1 said:
First, there is apparently testimony she did tell people at the time. There is definitely testimony that she told people about it six years ago, long before K was a nominee for the S.Ct.

Second, my point was that just because someone waits to tell someone in authority about it does not mean it did not occur.

Saw someone make the interesting point the other day that when men claim they were sexually abused by priests 20-30 years ago, but did not report it until now, everyone believes them. But there is a recoil that the woman is pulling a fast one. Interesting point.






It is a legitimate question for the Senate to ask at a hearing, sure. Not so much for the President to tweet about. Especially a President with such a long and storied past of using and abusing women, paying some of them off and insulting the rest.





I think the basics of her story are well known. If you think that lack of actual rape means no harm, no foul, that's pretty pathetic.
Click to expand...

For you to ATTEMPT to defend this hard, you are desperate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb, 1972 Grad and Orange_Crush
#3,099
#3,099
lawgator1 said:
First, there is apparently testimony she did tell people at the time. There is definitely testimony that she told people about it six years ago, long before K was a nominee for the S.Ct.

Second, my point was that just because someone waits to tell someone in authority about it does not mean it did not occur.

Saw someone make the interesting point the other day that when men claim they were sexually abused by priests 20-30 years ago, but did not report it until now, everyone believes them. But there is a recoil that the woman is pulling a fast one. Interesting point.






It is a legitimate question for the Senate to ask at a hearing, sure. Not so much for the President to tweet about. Especially a President with such a long and storied past of using and abusing women, paying some of them off and insulting the rest.





I think the basics of her story are well known. If you think that lack of actual rape means no harm, no foul, that's pretty pathetic.
Click to expand...
She also can't remember where it happened, when it happened, how she got to the party and the number of people at this party keep changing. The other person allegedly in the room says it didn't happen. This is just another left wing hoax by you left wing hacks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN-POSSUM, SpaceCoastVol, InVOLuntary and 3 others
#3,100
#3,100
lawgator1 said:
First, there is apparently testimony she did tell people at the time. There is definitely testimony that she told people about it six years ago, long before K was a nominee for the S.Ct.

Second, my point was that just because someone waits to tell someone in authority about it does not mean it did not occur.

Saw someone make the interesting point the other day that when men claim they were sexually abused by priests 20-30 years ago, but did not report it until now, everyone believes them. But there is a recoil that the woman is pulling a fast one. Interesting point.






It is a legitimate question for the Senate to ask at a hearing, sure. Not so much for the President to tweet about. Especially a President with such a long and storied past of using and abusing women, paying some of them off and insulting the rest.





I think the basics of her story are well known. If you think that lack of actual rape means no harm, no foul, that's pretty pathetic.
Click to expand...
Funny you should mention Trumps history with women while ignoring the partial history i referenced by the Democratic party leadership. Your entire party is using this woman. Get off your soapbox.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top