To all those unhappy about Kavanaugh being confirmed to the Supreme Court; but, couldn't be bothered to get out and vote in elections: :rotflol:

Not for rapist-Americans, they're feeling quite pleased.

I expect an up-tick in voter participation, but who knows low unemployment = "...fat, dumb, and happy..."

The people who care are voters.

http://cellar.org/2017/one-movie-two-screens.jpg

Now you'll get a chance to find out. Your thread will remain alive and well. WTG!

Rapist Americans: didn't Cheech & Chong do a diddy ' bout them?
 

Rapist Americans
climb into your window
tie you to the bed, poke and prod you, 1,2,3

Rapist Americans
lock the door behind them
get you on the desktop, do the hokey pokey, wow-wow-wee

Rapist Americans
will let you keep your job now
if you lick upon their member, do a good one, get a buck, fiftee

Rapist Americans
pretend to be policemen
stop you at the red light, it gets quite messy, as you'll see

So, 64% of dem women, and 60% of dem men, believe allegation 'is' evidence?
 

I blame the schools.

Or, does the chart show how bias skews opinion, illustrating the need for evidence?
 

I still blame the schools.

It is very hard to know many things. When it is hard, we save time by "outsourcing" the work of figuring out the truth. Sometimes to friends, sometimes to media, sometimes to the tribe.

in context, no, it ain't 'hard to know': evidence is everything
 

In context: there is no gray.

He did, or he didn't.

Where's the goddamned beef?


Friends, media, tribe: folks in the same boat as you, with access to the same things you have access to (no more or less), just as limited as you in assessing anything.

Rely on them sparingly.

If we're gonna make 2 million comments we all need to up our game.

I have some respect for the Supreme Court at least compared to the other branches because their thinking is on paper and even when you disagree you can follow it if you have the inclination. I'm going to have some trouble buying into this guy on the court but at least henry is finally represented.

May you live in interesting times.

This may come before the court...

Do you think people who can vote; but, don't vote don't care about that? Wouldn't that make them some kind of monsters?

"but at least henry is finally represented."
 

Really?

How?

Cuz Kav is a conservative repub?

I'm not either of those.

Cuz he's (supposed to be) a Rapist American?

I'm not one of those.

So, tell me: how am I finally represented?

hey!! I voted!

You supported him on this thread, own it.

no, mostly I poked the in-thread pussies with a sharp stick
 

But, you know what?

Even if he is a Rapist American, he's still a damned-sight better than any commie currently on the court.

So, okay, I 'own' it.

And -- just to be a dick about it -- I'm gonna crow LOUD when Ruthie strokes out (DIE, YOU OLD CRONE, DIE!) and TRUMPET when another repub con gets seated, and I'll keep doin' that clear through to the end of Trump's second term (cuz you know he's gonna have one [gives you the warm fuzzies, I know]).

That's right, ladies! Get them wire hangers ready! R v. W is history!

Gay folks? The closet is callin'!

Blacks? We've saved your place in dem good ol' cotton and tobacco fields!

Own it? I'll own it.

How you like them apples, Griff?

Griff, what's this I hear about you reading into stuff things aren't there? I hear tell you've been exaggerating situations and posting sensationalized material! Just who do you think you are, tw? Paranoia is a lonely place. You don't want to go there. :headshake

Shane Griff, come back!

I'm totally cool with you owning whatever is the fruit of this. Right totalitarianism is a thing.

In the Desert
 

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.

I said, "Is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter -- bitter,"he answered;

"But I like it
"Because it is bitter,
"And because it is my heart."

-Stephen Crane

btw: I hope you didn't think I was calling you a rapist, that was not my intention.

wasn't me you called rapist, it was someone else, and it's an unevidenced allegation
 

I'm bettin' if 'you' were accused you'd want the presumption of innocence.

I would and I'd fuckin' demand it.

Hell, even that piece of garbage, tw, deserves the presumption of innocence..

But, if he's a repub con (a category of human only slightly less odious to me than dem progs); he's guilty, don't you know.

And when you can't get him on misusin' his cock, crap about perjury and being unfit gets foisted up.

Interesting how when the guy or gal is aligned with you, well -- holy shit! -- they're fit! And whatever slippery games such a person plays with facts, well, not only is a blind eye turned, both eyes are dug sloppily out of the sockets with a rusty spoon and fed to the dogs.

The depth of hypocrisy among some of you is incredible. Only in the 'Freethought Forum' do I find even more pernicious hypocrites.

It wasn't a criminal trial. Totally different rules apply. And even in a criminal trial where there is a presumption of innocence, accusers are allowed to tell their side of the story.

I don't know what point you are trying to make. You think an accuser shouldn't be allowed to tell their side of a story?

"I don't know what point you are trying to make."
 

C'mon, guy...my 'point' is in every goddamned post of mine in-thread.

You know this.

#

"It wasn't a criminal trial. Totally different rules"

Yeah? Next time 'you' get accused of sumthin' just eat it. Your boss sez you did X when you didn't, just shut the hell up and eat it, cuz it's not a criminal trial, just an 'employment issue', right? Or your significant other declares you're bein' dumped cuz you were unfaithful: shut up and eat it; it, after all, isn't a criminal trial, just a 'marital issue', yeah?

Innocent till proven guilty isn't 'just' a legal construct. It's a cornerstore of civilization. It applies across the board, all the time, for everyone. If you declare you've been wronged, if you would take another to task for an offense, then PROVE IT.

Unfortunately the GOP didn't allow her to try to prove it and we potentially have a rapist on the Supreme Court. Yay for your side.

This was simple hardball, Republicans chose a potential rapist over the possibility of a delay.

True enough.

Yeah I deleted it sorry, I don't know how to say what I would like to say.

I think I get caught up in point making and get way the fuck off track.

I'll just say this then. Given the facts you know, and the evidence she could not produce, do you believe her case would have survived a real criminal trial?

(Not that it wouldn't open with statute of limitations - which is in place because of specifically these sorts of problems - i.e., cases lose all their potential evidence pro AND con - and human memory is ridiculously flawed over time.)

The anti-Kav side needed her not to go through actual trial conditions, which would have displayed more clearly to the world that there was no criminal case to be made.

The pro-Kav side needed to appear somewhat considerate and not put a potential victim through the kind of grilling a real trial would include.

All this is just part of what made it a perfect storm so that both sides could be seen as angelic from the POV of their constituencies

Both sides got roughly what they wanted although they certainly won't admit that

And so did the public actually - eating this shit up not realizing it's turd sandwiches. We love it, we want it, it's on all channels

"Unfortunately the GOP didn't allow her to try to prove it"

I disagree. Seems to me she had her shot and the best she could bring to the table was a claim.

#

"we potentially have a rapist on the Supreme Court."

That's a possibility.

#

"Yay for your side."

How did 'my side' (the weird-ass anarcho-individualists) score a win here?

#

"This was simple hardball"

This is politics.

#

"Republicans chose a potential rapist over the possibility of a delay."

Blame Feinstein.

that there is a pretty good assessment, toad
 

.

In a criminal trial, witnesses would have been interviewed by trained interrogators. And even would have testified under oath. Criminal trials are also given sufficient time to discover facts.

None of that happened here. Even the victim did not want to testify. And would not have if not outed by an aggressive press.

In a similar situation, how long did it take for Cosby to finally be prosecuted? How many witnesses were interrogated by professionals? Nothing done in a few months is at all related to what must happen in criminal prosecutions.

Even The Don said her testimony was credible. I do not believe any of this was decided on facts. Clear both in video and in comments from close associates; Senator Susan Collins was under threat and seriously disturbed due to unknown sources - be it Sen McConnell or physical violence. Her face and so many security guards demonstrated the pressure.

Decisions clearly were not based in what would exist in a criminal prosecution. Furthermore, I do not believe many of the excuses publicly stated for their conclusions.

But it is the nature of the beast.

I don’t think she can prove it without Kav’s friend rolling over. An extended look at him may have shown a pattern of behavior inconsistent with sitting on the SC.

I do blame Feinstein, both sides played a game which ignored the good of the country in favor of party. My perspective is that of someone who found Dr. Ford more credible.

Assuming Mark Judge had testified and agreed with everything you say, would the charge have been rape?

There were three accusers, dozens of witnesses they identified, and many that came forward for the accusers or for Kavanaugh. The FBI "investigation" only interviewed nine people, which included only one of the three accusers, and did not include the accused. They stapled the results of that into a thousand page document that Senators had an hour to read, and were prohibited from "characterizing".



So one of the facts I know is that they did their damnedest to avoid looking into it, and to prevent people from seeing what little they did look into, or saying what little they saw.

Probably attempted rape, definitely sexual assault. That was a misdemeanor at the time, with a statute of limitations (happily no longer the case), so he wouldn't go to jail over it.



But the question* isn't whether he should go to jail, it's whether he should be on the Supreme Court.


* in this thread, of course that's pretty much moot in the real world now

Big win for the Republicans. Hiring a criminal prosecutor for the public hearings was successful in shifting the conversation away from being a "job interview" to being a "criminal trial." The "trial" was unwinnable--because it WASN'T a trial, and the fact that he f a c e p l a n t e d the interview is being ignored.

I heard the classified version of the FBI report concluded Ford might've been the wife of a Supreme Court Justice today except that Kav dumped her in high school 'cause she wouldn't put out and hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

parsimony
 

Lot's of theory here about this and that.

Here's another: Ford is a loon or an operative or both; Kav is just a boring, run-of-mill guy who's only 'crime' was bein' nominated by Trump; the Dems had and have a similar set of debilitating faux-scandals waitin' for anyone on the publicized short list who might get nominated when Ruthie keels over.

Conspiracies to the Left of me, conspiracies to the Right, here I am...

Unexpected (by me, at least) twist:


So if Trump does get another pick, it could be the person who handled the ethics complaints from the last one.

That's hilarious. You couldn't make it up.

The complaints only relate to his crazy ass testimony so at least we're getting away from 35 year old memories and cover-ups.