EdsonNascimento said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Gern Blansten said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Realizing there would need to be a Constitutional Amendment change to make this happen, but would you liberals allow this scenario in this order:

1)  Appoint Judge Kavanaugh immediately.
2)  Do complete FBI investigation - if proven guilty, he is removed and we start over again.  If not guilty, life goes on

How about this....put the appointment on hold until the investigation is done.  We operated with 8 justices for most of 2016 if you remember.

Except you know and I know that means he never gets confirmed.  So if she recants or is proven liar his life is ruined.   My option allows everyone to get what they want.  Your option only ensures you get what you want.   If this was brought up timely as Feinstein very easily could have in an anonymous fashion, ok.  But this smells of something else, and unfortunately those playing that game don’t like others calling their potential bluff.  

How is his life ruined? He goes back to the DC circuit and hits the speaker circuit to lecture about evil liberal dem women and their false allegations to protect their radical abortion agenda. Ruined? And why not an FBI investigation? What is he afraid of, or what are you afraid of, if he’s innocent as you and he claim?
 

That’s what you think the end result of this is if she’s proven to have not quite told the truth?   I want to live in your world.  

If an FBI investigation clears Kavanaugh as you seem to believe in his innocence, he gets confirmed and sits on the SC. If there’s confirmation of the allegations and his nomination is withdrawn or he’s voted down, he returns to the DC circuit. His life is hardly “ruined.” Further, why would his life be ruined if he’s the innocent choir boy he claims to be? Seems you might not believe in his innocence and are playing the “victim” card.

Ha ha. Typical left.  Please quote where I said I think he’s innocent.

So you’re okay with a “guilty” sex offender or perjurer sitting on the Supreme Court? Is that what your argument has become? Are you outraged by kapernick and did you burn your Nike’s?

He’s guilty?   Huh.  Hadn’t seen that. I’ve heard accusations that need consideration.  Haven’t seen guilty yet. .  Interesting.  

And for for the record, I made no argument.   I proposed a hypothetica proposal to appease the left and the right.   That hypothetical can’t happen,  but I find the responses interesting.  

And couldnt care care less about mediocre QB that turned down a $14 million guaranteed option and claimed victim hood or how his business partner who was paying him anyway decided to use him.  Buy Nike. Why would I care?

Halifax2TheMax said:

cincybearcat said:

rgambs said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

my2hands said:

Question: she knows these guys are drugging and gang raping girls in 1981... and she continues to hang out with them, becoming a victim herself in 1982? 

What am I missing?

You know it has no bearing on this SCOTUS appointment but it is a very good question to be asking her (ask to understand).  Cause that is some seriously scaring shit right there.  Knowing what is going on and continually putting yourself at risk....scary indeed.

It's common, not unusual. You can find girls who do this in literally every high school and college in America.

I gotta ask, is it really common for girls to think guys are drugging or getting girls drunk, locking them in a room and guys lining up outside the room each taking a turn?  That doesn;t seem common at all to me.  I'm sure the drugging/alcohol could probably be called common...but gang bangs?  Really?  Without any girls saying anything?  I sure hope that's not common.  And it's what has me interested in her perspective as to why she and no one else said anything.

You've never been to a frat party, have you?

So gang bangs at every frat party? Cause that’s what I’m talking about.  So you’ve been to a frat party where a girl was gang banged and you did nothing?

If it doesn’t happen at “every” frat party, it didn’t happen? And if we didn’t personally attend a frat party where it happened, we did nothing? Who the fuck said, “every.” De nile isn’t a river in Egypt.

mrussel1 said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

mfc2006 said:

Someone actually wants to bet about whether or not these assaults happened? Are you fucking serious?? 

Hell yeah!  You down?  Although honestly I’d much rather Halifax-  he burps up most of the santorum we see in amt.

That's a shitty statement

mrussel1 said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

mfc2006 said:

Someone actually wants to bet about whether or not these assaults happened? Are you fucking serious?? 

Hell yeah!  You down?  Although honestly I’d much rather Halifax-  he burps up most of the santorum we see in amt.

That's a shitty statement

tbergs said:

mace1229 said:

tbergs said:

mace1229 said:

njnancy said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

Old habits die hard, it seems. Once again some are putting the onus on the women to stop men’s behaviour. ”Why did the women hang around and let this happen?” “Why didn’t they just walk out and refuse to go to any other parties?”  “Why didn’t they report it to their parents or the police”. 

Why didn’t actresses just refuse to meet with Harvey Weinstein? Because they all knew that was what you had to do, to get work, and they didn’t see any way of changing the system. 

Why don’t female employees and executives just refuse to go along with workplace harassment? Because they all know that is what you have to do to keep your job, and they didn’t see any way of changing the system. 

Why didn’t female students just walk out of parties, report the harassment to their parents and teaches and police? Because they all knew that is what you put up with from men to be accepted, and they didn’t see any way of changing the system. 

Why is it always up to the women to stop men’s behaviour? 

I dont agree with that, not to this extreme.
Sure, some rude behavior, maybe some touching even. But a full on line of guys waiting their turn for a rape?
I have to ask myself what is more plausible:
That this third accusation is accurate and that hundreds of people were aware, men and women, that multiple girls were getting raped by dozens of men on a regular basis and not a single one of them were decent enough of human beings to report a gang rape, or that this story is at best exaggerated or possible made up?
I just don't buy the "rat" defense, high school students, even in the 80s, knew that a gang rape was wrong. You could maybe scare 1 or 2 witnesses into silence, but not hundreds as described.
I'm not saying I know she's making this up, but I can say there are parts of this story that don't add up to me and make me question it.

Where are you getting the "hundreds" number from? Its not likely that there were hundreds of witnesses 35 or 36 years ago. Georgetown Prep has a current boarding and day school enrollment of 491 students. Holten Arms has a current enrollment of 655 students in grades 1 through 12. How do you know "hundreds of people were aware?" Ever been to a house or frat party, or any party with hundreds of people? Ever notice how there were multiple smaller parties going on in different parts of the house, field, room, basement, woods, etc.?

Some people seem to lack life experience, are completely unaware of the psychology and sociology behind human behavior or just don't want to believe women. Or, if they're not convicted in a court of law, there is no validity to the allegations. Was Bill Clinton convicted? Yet y'all so willingly view him as guilty as charged. And give Trump a pass.

I just reread her statement. I thought she said hundreds at the party. She didnt, she didn't say how many were at the parties. But taking into account that others had described these parties with numbers into the hundreds, that she described a "train of numerous boys" in line, by all accounts most of these give the impression of very large parties. I have to assume not every boy at the party was in on the raping, and there was more than 1 or 2 girls showing up.  So it would be same to put the numbers in several dozen. SO my point remains the same, even if 30 people at a party instead of 100. How do 20 witnesses see a gang rape and be okay with it on a regular basis? 

Who says that they were okay with it? How does someone commit a gang rape and be okay with it on a regular basis?

(I lied, I stayed)

My opinion, if you are aware that a train of numerous boys gang rape a girl and yu say and do nothing, and you continue to attend said parties, then that means you are okay with it.

Refresh my memory, did you vote for Trump? Maybe you get where I'm going with this if so...

Let me guess, you voted for Hilary? The same one who attacked her husnamd’s victims and stood by and supported him?
Youre wrong, I don’t see where going with this.

So the pattern seems to be that you put the onus on the women when men behave badly. Thanks for clarifying. I suppose we could just says both sides here too and call it good.

mickeyrat said:

commonalitybetwern all allegations, drinking.

does he still?

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/2016/10/students_suit_details_horrifying_frat_house_gang_rape_claim.html

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/82068511-157.html

 https://nypost.com/2016/10/25/frat-bros-allegedly-played-rock-paper-scissors-during-rape/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/24/rape-sexual-assault-ban-frats

There’s more. Do you think frat parties are safer for women today or 35 years ago. Doesn’t need to be “every” to be prevalent. 

There’s a few things she says that really take the cake though-

-she went to these parties (10 of them) until 1983, and she was victimized in 81 or 82. 
-she learned that the drugs were in the punch, so she could stay away from
the punch and that way she wouldn’t get raped.
-she went to 10 of these parties where women were in a closed room and a line of guys waited outside the door to rape victim when it was their turn 


Holy shit that’s pretty much the worst fucking house party I could ever imagine.  Yet she went 10 times, actually was victimized and still went back for another year or two.

and Captain Rape was like 16 or 17 at the time these parties happened and she was 21.  So she was at a frat party with sophomores in HS where people were being assaulted and raped and she just figured she wouldn’t drink the punch.

you guys should NEVER let Avenatti into your gang, he’s going to ruin it all.  At least Ms Ford is believeable, this one is worse than Henderson and she was questionable.

anyway, who wants to gamble on Kav becoming our next scotus

cincybearcat said:

rgambs said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

my2hands said:

Question: she knows these guys are drugging and gang raping girls in 1981... and she continues to hang out with them, becoming a victim herself in 1982? 

What am I missing?

You know it has no bearing on this SCOTUS appointment but it is a very good question to be asking her (ask to understand).  Cause that is some seriously scaring shit right there.  Knowing what is going on and continually putting yourself at risk....scary indeed.

It's common, not unusual. You can find girls who do this in literally every high school and college in America.

I gotta ask, is it really common for girls to think guys are drugging or getting girls drunk, locking them in a room and guys lining up outside the room each taking a turn?  That doesn;t seem common at all to me.  I'm sure the drugging/alcohol could probably be called common...but gang bangs?  Really?  Without any girls saying anything?  I sure hope that's not common.  And it's what has me interested in her perspective as to why she and no one else said anything.

You've never been to a frat party, have you?

So gang bangs at every frat party? Cause that’s what I’m talking about.  So you’ve been to a frat party where a girl was gang banged and you did nothing?

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

mfc2006 said:

Someone actually wants to bet about whether or not these assaults happened? Are you fucking serious?? 

Hell yeah!  You down?  Although honestly I’d much rather Halifax-  he burps up most of the santorum we see in amt.

That's a shitty statement

Par for the course around these parts. But hey, my delusions consist of 8 guilty pleas or convictions, indicted Russians and an ongoing Team Mueller investigation and theirs rely on how it’s just not possible this upstanding, white privileged POS, couldn’t have possibly sexually assaulted or raped a woman or women, and then lied about it.

Signed, 

Delusional, Cheeto eating, basement dwelling, keyboard warrior, Internet tough guy, #ptape, burping Santorum.

The problem is that no one is impressed with the 8 guilty pleas because they’re utterly worthless with regards to Trump and the make believe collusion.  It’s like finding Escobar’s hitman guilty of a dwi. It doesn’t mean shit.  

EdsonNascimento said:

A bit of free advice.  Stop watching news on tv.    Find objective sources.  Granted that’s near impossible right now, so question everything including your own beliefs.  People you see on tv are not the majority of people.  It’s convenient to paint people in those broad strokes.  But remember, they’re all after a buck.