"the Mooch"

J-Rod10

Active Member
DTT BOTM WINNER
What does she have to gain from it?

Round about $600K as of the other day, and more than likely a book deal whether he gets in or not.
 

carnivorous chicken

Active Member
J-Rod10 said:
What does she have to gain from it?

Round about $600K as of the other day, and more than likely a book deal whether he gets in or not.
I actually didn't know about the gofundme until now -- but are you arguing that she presented testimony and started this process weeks ago because she foresaw that people would create a gofundme for her? Seems to me it was created after the fact, in order to help with her expenses -- getting her to the hearing, hiring security and lawyers, relocating. What are your odds that anything over her significant expenses will be donated to victims of sexual abuse?
 

J-Rod10

Active Member
DTT BOTM WINNER
No, I don't think she did it for the money. But to say there is nothing to gain, at this point, isn't true.

I think she came forward with the understanding that she would remain anonymous, with a claim that can't be corroborated, and the Dems played her like a fiddle.


I think it sets a dangerous precedent when someone making a claim disqualifies you from doing whatever, with no proof that it's true.

This will be a tool used by both sides from this point forward.

Which, I think, is mostly my problem with it. It's he said she said. There's no way around that. The problem, is the left sitting on it for months. As soon as the claim was made, the decision to investigate it could have been made, and he either cleared, or not. Instead, the decision was made to sit on it until the last minute, and use it as a partisan tool to try to stall the confirmation until after mid-terms.
 

sav0r

Member
Can we all agree that term limits for Judges should be a thing?

This politicized bullshit is out of control.
 

sav0r

Member
J-Rod10 said:
Absolutely.
Beautiful.

Let's bring back democracy. Fuck this shit.

I was out getting pizza for lunch the other day, I was on the road for my day job and trying out a local place that is highly recommended, when I sat down they had Fox on one TV and CNN on the other. I asked them to turn it off or to change the channels/TV's to something non political (I was the only person there, it was 11am, I started at 5am). The waitress kindly obliged. 15 minutes later, the local station she picked was showing the same feed as either CNN or Fox (with their own commentary). When the waitress noticed she apologized and changed the channel again. 15 minutes later, the new channel was showing to the same feed as the "news" channels. The waitress again apologized. I told her that it's not her fault and thanked her for being vigilant.

Fuck cable TV, fuck advertisement based news media, fuck news media, and fuck the dumbasses who pay for all that shit.

/rant
 

carnivorous chicken

Active Member
J-Rod10 said:
No, I don't think she did it for the money. But to say there is nothing to gain, at this point, isn't true.

I think she came forward with the understanding that she would remain anonymous, with a claim that can't be corroborated, and the Dems played her like a fiddle.


I think it sets a dangerous precedent when someone making a claim disqualifies you from doing whatever, with no proof that it's true.

This will be a tool used by both sides from this point forward.

Which, I think, is mostly my problem with it. It's he said she said. There's no way around that. The problem, is the left sitting on it for months. As soon as the claim was made, the decision to investigate it could have been made, and he either cleared, or not. Instead, the decision was made to sit on it until the last minute, and use it as a partisan tool to try to stall the confirmation until after mid-terms.
But that does take away the argument that she did it for money.

You also realize that she came forward prior to his nomination, right? When he was shortlisted. She essentially tried to prevent his nomination by stating her case. If there was a capable administration, someone would have listened and they could have avoided this altogether by nominating someone who they knew would have sexual assault allegations leveled against him. So your arguing that they could have investigated when the claim was made is valid, except it was before he was nominated. Your argument that the dems held onto it until the last minute simply isn't true either.
 

carnivorous chicken

Active Member
Sav0r said:
Let's bring back democracy. Fuck this shit.

Fuck cable TV, fuck advertisement based news media, fuck news media, and fuck the dumbasses who pay for all that shit.

/rant
While I sympathize with the sentiment, especially given today's environment, you can't have democracy without the media. The key is being a smart reader (not watcher).
 

J-Rod10

Active Member
DTT BOTM WINNER
The Dems holding on to it until the last minute simply isn't true?

Feinstein and one other were given the info in July (after the nomination). It was only made mention of publicly a couple weeks ago after one of the two leaked it to the press.
 

carnivorous chicken

Active Member
J-Rod10 said:
The Dems holding on to it until the last minute simply isn't true?

Feinstein and one other were given the info in July (after the nomination). It was only made mention of publicly a couple weeks ago after one of the two leaked it to the press.
The Washington Post was sent the allegations in early July and passed the info on to people in the admininstration, prior to the announcement of his nomination, prior to Feinstein receiving it, but after he was shortlisted. They ignored it.
 

carnivorous chicken

Active Member
I should add -- refuting your arguments J-Rod probably won't change your mind about Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence, but I'm hoping you can at least see that his temperament, his stated partisan bias, and his proven lying on the stand should disqualify him for the Supreme Court. Right? Right??
 

J-Rod10

Active Member
DTT BOTM WINNER
carnivorous chicken said:
The Washington Post was sent the allegations in early July and passed the info on to people in the admininstration, prior to the announcement of his nomination, prior to Feinstein receiving it, but after he was shortlisted. They ignored it.
Have a link to that?

The WaPo article says she anonymously made a tip to them in early July, same time as she went to her Senator. Says nothing about the WaPo taking it to the White House.
 

carnivorous chicken

Active Member
J-Rod10 said:
Have a link to that?

The WaPo article says she anonymously made a tip to them in early July, same time as she went to her Senator. Says nothing about the WaPo taking it to the White House.
You're right, I think -- I looked and didn't turn anything up, must have been misremembering.

Now, how about this:
carnivorous chicken said:
I should add -- refuting your arguments J-Rod probably won't change your mind about Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence, but I'm hoping you can at least see that his temperament, his stated partisan bias, and his proven lying on the stand should disqualify him for the Supreme Court. Right? Right??
 

teazer

Active Member
DTT BOTM WINNER
J-Rod10 said:
..... I think she came forward with the understanding that she would remain anonymous, with a claim that can't be corroborated, and the Dems played her like a fiddle.....

I think it sets a dangerous precedent when someone making a claim disqualifies you from doing whatever, with no proof that it's true...
On the first point, as I understand it, one of her friends leaked it to the papers and when they turned up at her home and work, she relented and talked to them. Feinstein kept it confidential as she had been asked to do until it was published and that's when she shared it. I understand the argument that teh Dem's played the situation, but it's not really the case.

Your second point is one that Trump and his kids keep making and while it's true that there can be false accusations, they apparently happen in less than 2% or sexual assault cases, so I am less worried about that. For sure, nobody should be publicly pilloried for one accusation in isolation, but it appears that this judge lied about how he acted as a teenager and lied about the legality of his drinking. That coupled with his unhinged conspiracy theories about the Clintons and Dems just looking to hurt him, should be enough to bar him for the position. A Judge can't just lie under oath and neither can he attack senators when he doesn't like the questions. The perception is that he came across as a spiteful person with a huge sense of entitlement and that should be an issue for the committee and Senate to ponder seriously.

The thing that is appalling many people, is the way that Republicans seem hell bent on voting for him before the facts emerge. Trump accused them of failing to ram through the nomination process and to be fair to the American people, the country and the process deserves better than that.

How did we get to a place where each party seems hell bent on ramming their point of view down everyone else's throats? We can do better than that.
 

carnivorous chicken

Active Member
The last day or two has only made things worse. Although the stuff they are digging up about partying and drinking doesn't seem too terrible or uncommon (although I would wager most people here made it through high school and college without sexually assaulting people), Trump has returned to mocking victims. Approval for Kavanaugh has plummeted. The idea that this is going to hurt Dems seems misplaced and the opposite is more likely.
 

teazer

Active Member
DTT BOTM WINNER
Except that Chump and a few of his supporters are defining the Judge and themselves as victims and it's those nasty lying women that are the problem. I heard the same crap from a client the other day. He's another one that blames everyone else for his problems and never accepts responsibility for his own screw ups.

What's interesting in all this is the white guy push back. Trump is basically telling all men that they are being threatened by women and should be afraid of that. The response by men in power isn't new. It was very visible in the nineties when men were starting to be charged with sexual assault in a visible way, but it has been around since the dawn of time.

What's new this time is that Trump is trying to weaponize that fear along party lines so that people that defend women are all democrats and men that feel threatened should stand with Trump. How was that ever a "value" of conservatives or Republicans to stand against women's right to defend themselves? That really is taking us down a rabbit hole and the orange one is the man to do that.

It's almost as if we have all stopped thinking and instead just react emotionally to a snake oil salesman. It's back to lynch mob politics.
 

J-Rod10

Active Member
DTT BOTM WINNER
Barber was fun, stupid hot, but fun. The week before getting ready, and the few days after getting unpacked sucks.

Kav got in, even managed to pull a Dem vote.

Time to ramp up for the Mid-Terms now.

Clinton quote today.

"You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about," Clinton told CNN's Christiane Amanpour. "That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again."

Only be civil when you're in charge, apparently. And folks wonder why things are so divided.
 

carnivorous chicken

Active Member
On the other hand, Republicans blocked a thorough investigation by the FBI over Kavanaugh (one supported by the American Bar Association), who will sit for his entire term with doubt over his past (and the knowledge that he demonstrably lied under oath and revealed his deep partisanship) and who was opposed by thousands of lawyers as well as a plurality of people in the US. He's the fourth Republican appointee sitting on the court who was put there by a president who lost the popular vote. And there's the hypocrisy of Republicans (Grassley, McConnell, et al.) who rushed his confirmation after claiming the Democrats were trying to stall it two years after they prevented even a hearing on Merrick Garland, Obama's appointee. So there's that.

Yes, "Kav" got in -- by the smallest margin for a Supreme Court nominee since 1881. One Republican opposed him.

Although I think Clinton would be a far better president than Trump, there are some elements of her past that I don't like. Republicans, however, especially Trump, continue to whip up animosity against her (despite dozens of investigations and no findings of criminal wrongdoing), including chanting "lock her up" at rallies (and today Feinstein was the target as well). Demanding to lock up a political enemy who isn't guilty of any crimes? Spreading demonstrably false accusations about opponents and lying about curent events? Pandering to racists? Making fun of someone who has experienced sexual assault or who is disabled? Supporting a president accused of multiple counts of sexual assault? Trying to flip the narrative and argue that boys and young men are somehow now at risk? Continuing to call the free press the enemy of the people? The list goes on -- it's exhausting.

I think Clinton was talking about American values being damaged or destroyed by this administration, and I don't think it's hard to understand where she is coming from.

Remind me again what the Democrats are doing besides threatening the country with civility? How they, not the Republicans, are not being civil?
 

sav0r

Member
J-Rod10 said:
Barber was fun, stupid hot, but fun. The week before getting ready, and the few days after getting unpacked sucks.

Kav got in, even managed to pull a Dem vote.

Time to ramp up for the Mid-Terms now.

Clinton quote today.

"You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about," Clinton told CNN's Christiane Amanpour. "That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again."

Only be civil when you're in charge, apparently. And folks wonder why things are so divided.
The Republican lead congressional investigation on Benghazi was longer than the fucking 911 investigation. Theres some civil non-divided leadership for you. Embarrassing.
 
Top Bottom