Kansas Crimson

Gutter's Mother wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:50 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 10:25 pm

Geezer wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:34 pm That's not all, there is another one.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... ah-ramirez

This is ridiculous.

So says you.
Perhaps it is "ridiculous". Perhaps it's not "ridiculous".

Do you feel it's "ridiculous" that a man who is being nominated for the highest court in the land is now being accused of inappropriate sexual behavior by another woman?
Or do you feel, "ridiculous" is a women making false allegations? - Assuming they are false.
Maybe "ridiculous" is people refusing to believe a woman or absolutely believing a woman who is telling a true or a false story - because they don't like or they do like that she is accusing someone they choose to feel is innocent or guilty. - ASSUMING the allegations are true or false.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:13 am

Gutter's Mother wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:50 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 10:25 pm

This is ridiculous.

So says you.
Perhaps it is "ridiculous". Perhaps it's not "ridiculous".

Do you feel it's "ridiculous" that a man who is being nominated for the highest court in the land is now being accused of inappropriate sexual behavior by another woman?
Or do you feel, "ridiculous" is a women making false allegations? - Assuming they are false.
Maybe "ridiculous" is people refusing to believe a woman or absolutely believing a woman who is telling a true or a false story - because they don't like or they do like that she is accusing someone they choose to feel is innocent or guilty. - ASSUMING the allegations are true or false.

You're outguttering yourself. It's ridiculous that anyone -- much less Farrow -- would go to print with this garbage.

The New Yorker did not confirm with other eyewitnesses that Judge Kavanaugh was at the party.

The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:13 am

Gutter's Mother wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:50 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 10:25 pm

This is ridiculous.

So says you.
Perhaps it is "ridiculous". Perhaps it's not "ridiculous".

Do you feel it's "ridiculous" that a man who is being nominated for the highest court in the land is now being accused of inappropriate sexual behavior by another woman?
Or do you feel, "ridiculous" is a women making false allegations? - Assuming they are false.
Maybe "ridiculous" is people refusing to believe a woman or absolutely believing a woman who is telling a true or a false story - because they don't like or they do like that she is accusing someone they choose to feel is innocent or guilty. - ASSUMING the allegations are true or false.

You're outguttering yourself. It's ridiculous that anyone -- much less Farrow -- would go to print with this garbage.

The New Yorker did not confirm with other eyewitnesses that Judge Kavanaugh was at the party.

The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:45 pm It's awfully hard to argue against this today:

Brett Kavanaugh Is A Man The Right Can Get Behind

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/brett ... 1829225731

A thing it took, like, the New York Times and Washington Post and CNN and so forth maybe a little too long to figure out, back during the 2016 campaigns, a lapse that has launched innumerable blinkered Cletus Safaris in search of some other, less chillingly sociopathic answer in the aftermath of that hell-moment, is this: What the American right wants, what it’s after, isn’t some abstract pluralist success, like the smooth functioning of government and/or the material improvement of American life. It wants, only and entirely, to defeat its opponents. Those aren’t quite the same thing. The Republican party would not choose the former if it could be accomplished without the latter.

[...]

It has to be this guy. It has to be this guy now more than ever. It has to be this guy, now, because he has been accused, credibly, of attempting to rape a 15-year-old girl in 1982—moreover because people believe this should be considered a disqualifying blight on his record. The thing that must happen is that those people must be defeated. That is the whole point. What must be shown to the whole world is that this, even this, cannot stop him. The bigger the outrage that can be brushed aside, the more thorough the defeat for the people who thought something, anything, might take precedence over this white man being the pick of another white man.

Gutter's Mother wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:56 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:13 am

Gutter's Mother wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:50 am

So says you.
Perhaps it is "ridiculous". Perhaps it's not "ridiculous".

Do you feel it's "ridiculous" that a man who is being nominated for the highest court in the land is now being accused of inappropriate sexual behavior by another woman?
Or do you feel, "ridiculous" is a women making false allegations? - Assuming they are false.
Maybe "ridiculous" is people refusing to believe a woman or absolutely believing a woman who is telling a true or a false story - because they don't like or they do like that she is accusing someone they choose to feel is innocent or guilty. - ASSUMING the allegations are true or false.

You're outguttering yourself. It's ridiculous that anyone -- much less Farrow -- would go to print with this garbage.

The New Yorker did not confirm with other eyewitnesses that Judge Kavanaugh was at the party.

The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

I'll outgutter myself even more.

It's "garbage" because no one can/will corroborate/confirm (nor deny) the story - so of course it didn't happen?
Got it!

I read the story. I'm not going to pretend I know for certain that it's legit or bull-shit.
You and others can feel free to do as such.
Have at it.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:27 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:45 pm It's awfully hard to argue against this today:

Brett Kavanaugh Is A Man The Right Can Get Behind

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/brett ... 1829225731

A thing it took, like, the New York Times and Washington Post and CNN and so forth maybe a little too long to figure out, back during the 2016 campaigns, a lapse that has launched innumerable blinkered Cletus Safaris in search of some other, less chillingly sociopathic answer in the aftermath of that hell-moment, is this: What the American right wants, what it’s after, isn’t some abstract pluralist success, like the smooth functioning of government and/or the material improvement of American life. It wants, only and entirely, to defeat its opponents. Those aren’t quite the same thing. The Republican party would not choose the former if it could be accomplished without the latter.

[...]

It has to be this guy. It has to be this guy now more than ever. It has to be this guy, now, because he has been accused, credibly, of attempting to rape a 15-year-old girl in 1982—moreover because people believe this should be considered a disqualifying blight on his record. The thing that must happen is that those people must be defeated. That is the whole point. What must be shown to the whole world is that this, even this, cannot stop him. The bigger the outrage that can be brushed aside, the more thorough the defeat for the people who thought something, anything, might take precedence over this white man being the pick of another white man.

Any number of grub-like Yale jurist-ghouls with diamond-edged ‘80s-dad hair and uniformly right-wing ideas about constitutional law could get confirmed to fill the Supreme Court’s vacant ninth seat, and once in that seat could be counted upon to plagiarize Anton Chigurh dialog into incumbent legal precedence for the next three decades. The earth contains no shortage of these. And so, in the aftermath of the discovery that Brett Kavanaugh, the one Donald Trump happened to nominate for the gig, quite likely attempted to rape a 15-year-old girl in the summer of 1982 (and, perhaps less important though no less relevant, almost certainly lied to the Senate about the use of stolen materials to aid George W. Bush’s judicial nominees) and has been living comfortably with this fact about himself for the ensuing 36 years, it should be easy enough to withdraw his nomination and move along to the next crypto-Nazi cottage cheese sculpture in the pipeline. He’d breeze through confirmation, whoever he was: You could pretty much count on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s terminally third-brained centrist Democrats lining up to play themselves. And that would be a success, theoretically: A new, arch-conservative Supreme Court justice, possibly even one not tainted by a credible accusation that he once tried to rape a child.

dolomite wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:20 pm My question is this, are there any red blooded males on the Supreme Court that have not attempted to score with girls during high school or college years? I highly doubt it.
The hypocrisy in the Kavanaugh matter is absurd.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:59 pm

dolomite wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:20 pm My question is this, are there any red blooded males on the Supreme Court that have not attempted to score with girls during high school or college years? I highly doubt it.
The hypocrisy in the Kavanaugh matter is absurd.

so there’s no difference between “attempting to score” and sexual assault?

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:26 pm Here, then, I'll excerpt the paragraph that I omitted:

Any number of grub-like Yale jurist-ghouls with diamond-edged ‘80s-dad hair and uniformly right-wing ideas about constitutional law could get confirmed to fill the Supreme Court’s vacant ninth seat, and once in that seat could be counted upon to plagiarize Anton Chigurh dialog into incumbent legal precedence for the next three decades. The earth contains no shortage of these. And so, in the aftermath of the discovery that Brett Kavanaugh, the one Donald Trump happened to nominate for the gig, quite likely attempted to rape a 15-year-old girl in the summer of 1982 (and, perhaps less important though no less relevant, almost certainly lied to the Senate about the use of stolen materials to aid George W. Bush’s judicial nominees) and has been living comfortably with this fact about himself for the ensuing 36 years, it should be easy enough to withdraw his nomination and move along to the next crypto-Nazi cottage cheese sculpture in the pipeline. He’d breeze through confirmation, whoever he was: You could pretty much count on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s terminally third-brained centrist Democrats lining up to play themselves. And that would be a success, theoretically: A new, arch-conservative Supreme Court justice, possibly even one not tainted by a credible accusation that he once tried to rape a child.

So why, then, is Kavanaugh himself so important?

Is it because of his view on the relationship between the president and the law?

Because of the views of whatever silent benefactor he obviously has (which: it's ABSOLUTELY true that it could be entirely benign, like his family, but it's a complete mystery).

Is it because the GOP is incredibly worried that there's just not enough time to ram a non-rapey nominee through before the midterms? If that's the case, then I would suggest the GOP's priorities are...misplaced.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:59 pm

dolomite wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:20 pm My question is this, are there any red blooded males on the Supreme Court that have not attempted to score with girls during high school or college years? I highly doubt it.
The hypocrisy in the Kavanaugh matter is absurd.

so there’s no difference between “attempting to score” and sexual assault?

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:26 pm Here, then, I'll excerpt the paragraph that I omitted:

Any number of grub-like Yale jurist-ghouls with diamond-edged ‘80s-dad hair and uniformly right-wing ideas about constitutional law could get confirmed to fill the Supreme Court’s vacant ninth seat, and once in that seat could be counted upon to plagiarize Anton Chigurh dialog into incumbent legal precedence for the next three decades. The earth contains no shortage of these. And so, in the aftermath of the discovery that Brett Kavanaugh, the one Donald Trump happened to nominate for the gig, quite likely attempted to rape a 15-year-old girl in the summer of 1982 (and, perhaps less important though no less relevant, almost certainly lied to the Senate about the use of stolen materials to aid George W. Bush’s judicial nominees) and has been living comfortably with this fact about himself for the ensuing 36 years, it should be easy enough to withdraw his nomination and move along to the next crypto-Nazi cottage cheese sculpture in the pipeline. He’d breeze through confirmation, whoever he was: You could pretty much count on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s terminally third-brained centrist Democrats lining up to play themselves. And that would be a success, theoretically: A new, arch-conservative Supreme Court justice, possibly even one not tainted by a credible accusation that he once tried to rape a child.

So why, then, is Kavanaugh himself so important?

Is it because of his view on the relationship between the president and the law?

Because of the views of whatever silent benefactor he obviously has (which: it's ABSOLUTELY true that it could be entirely benign, like his family, but it's a complete mystery).

Is it because the GOP is incredibly worried that there's just not enough time to ram a non-rapey nominee through before the midterms? If that's the case, then I would suggest the GOP's priorities are...misplaced.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:12 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:59 pm

dolomite wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:20 pm My question is this, are there any red blooded males on the Supreme Court that have not attempted to score with girls during high school or college years? I highly doubt it.
The hypocrisy in the Kavanaugh matter is absurd.

so there’s no difference between “attempting to score” and sexual assault?

Same way as "not giving him a lifetime appointment to the highest job in his field" is the exact same thing as "ruining his life."

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:31 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:12 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:59 pm

so there’s no difference between “attempting to score” and sexual assault?

Same way as "not giving him a lifetime appointment to the highest job in his field" is the exact same thing as "ruining his life."

You know as well as anyone that this would end his career. "If he's not good enough for SCOTUS, he's not good enough for anything!"

Moreover, if you want to know how these things can cause ripples far beyond one's career, you could ask the widowed Miguel Estrada.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:27 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:26 pm Here, then, I'll excerpt the paragraph that I omitted:

Any number of grub-like Yale jurist-ghouls with diamond-edged ‘80s-dad hair and uniformly right-wing ideas about constitutional law could get confirmed to fill the Supreme Court’s vacant ninth seat, and once in that seat could be counted upon to plagiarize Anton Chigurh dialog into incumbent legal precedence for the next three decades. The earth contains no shortage of these. And so, in the aftermath of the discovery that Brett Kavanaugh, the one Donald Trump happened to nominate for the gig, quite likely attempted to rape a 15-year-old girl in the summer of 1982 (and, perhaps less important though no less relevant, almost certainly lied to the Senate about the use of stolen materials to aid George W. Bush’s judicial nominees) and has been living comfortably with this fact about himself for the ensuing 36 years, it should be easy enough to withdraw his nomination and move along to the next crypto-Nazi cottage cheese sculpture in the pipeline. He’d breeze through confirmation, whoever he was: You could pretty much count on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s terminally third-brained centrist Democrats lining up to play themselves. And that would be a success, theoretically: A new, arch-conservative Supreme Court justice, possibly even one not tainted by a credible accusation that he once tried to rape a child.

So why, then, is Kavanaugh himself so important?

Is it because of his view on the relationship between the president and the law?

Because of the views of whatever silent benefactor he obviously has (which: it's ABSOLUTELY true that it could be entirely benign, like his family, but it's a complete mystery).

Is it because the GOP is incredibly worried that there's just not enough time to ram a non-rapey nominee through before the midterms? If that's the case, then I would suggest the GOP's priorities are...misplaced.

That first sentence is flat out false. This is the 5-4 seat. And anyone whom Trump had nominated would be intentionally destroyed. If it were Amy Coney Barrett, for example, we'd be hearing about the "cult" to which she belonged or her long-ago affinity for gay-conversion therapy.

This is too important a seat for Dems to allow the confirmation of anyone with "right-wing ideas about constitutional law" (whatever that means). And just wait until RBG steps down...yikes!

That's the thing that makes this wholly frustrating and destructive. Whether or not Kavanaugh did the things he's accused of, he'd be accused of them anyway. The Farrow-Mayer piece is proof positive than nothing matters here except stopping the nomination and hoping for a few Senate seat pick ups in 6 weeks. That's a tragic disservice to Mrs. Ford. The new allegation is not credible. And it is so not credible as to discredit Ford's allegation right along with it. Which is pretty shitty.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:17 pm So: what happened, then? Did the GOP just blow this one in the layoff line, then, by nominating a candidate with a bad background?