President Trump

[YourGrandpa]

Rape was never on the table. Straw

Four what? College party fouls? Straw.

Ford's accounts changed and were refuted. Straw.

Your OPINIONS are based on circumstantial information. Straw.

You mean to tell me to tell me more people are coming forward with unfounded information in protest? Really big straw.

[Transient]

Yes, rape was one of the accusations. Try to keep up. It's really kinda disturbing that you consider these accusations to just be party fouls.

The ACLU and law professors' opposition isn't based on unfounded information, it's based on his lack of judicial restraint, which was made evident to the whole country during the public hearings.

[Κracus]

Don't forget the FBI "investigation" in which they didn't even question key witnesses. I mean, what excuses do you have there? It's painfully obvious it was done just to placate everyone. Nothing was actually investigated. Besides the rape allegations his temperament really doesn't appear to be that of a supreme court judge but hey, he likes beer.

[YourGrandpa]

Yes, rape was one of the accusations. Try to keep up. It's really kinda disturbing that you consider these accusations to just be party fouls.

The ACLU and law professors' opposition isn't based on unfounded information, it's based on his lack of judicial restraint, which was made evident to the whole country during the public hearings.

Accuser Ford: Claimed attempted rape.
Accuser Ramirez: Claimed she was shown his penis.
Accuser Swetnick: Claimed she saw him standing in a line to have sex.
Accuser Anonymous: Claimed he pushed a woman sexually.

Where's the rape accusation?

Do you not find the timing of the ACLU's criticism/opposition a little suspect? Where were they in 2006?

We could keep going back and fourth discussing everyone OPINIONS of Kavanaugh. But that won't change the fact he's been appointed to the SCOTUS.

[Eraser]

Accuser Ford: Claimed attempted rape.

Where's the rape accusation?

[YourGrandpa]

Because attempted rape is as much rape as attempted murder is murder.

[Eraser]

Oh, didn't know you'd gone in full IAAL mode.
Please continue.

[YourGrandpa]

Just pointing out the obvious. No IAAL necessary.

[Transient]

Accuser Swetnick: Claimed she saw him standing in a line to have sex.

She accused him of drugging girls and gang rape.

Do you not find the timing of the ACLU's criticism/opposition a little suspect? Where were they in 2006?

He wasn't being nominated to the Supreme Court in 2006.

[YourGrandpa]

You're all in here on the selective presentation and interpretation of information.

The allegation came from Julie Swetnick, 55, who like Judge Kavanaugh, 53, grew up in the Washington suburbs. In a statement posted on Twitter by her lawyer, Ms. Swetnick said she observed the future Supreme Court nominee at parties where women were verbally abused, inappropriately touched, made “disoriented” with alcohol or drugs and “gang raped.”

She said she witnessed Judge Kavanaugh participating in some of the misconduct, including lining up outside a bedroom where “numerous boys” were “waiting for their ‘turn’ with a girl inside the room.” Ms. Swetnick said she was raped at one of the parties and believed she had been drugged, but did not directly accuse Judge Kavanaugh of raping her.

None of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated by The New York Times, and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, declined to make her available for an interview.

She never accused Kavanaugh directly of rape and as stated at the end, "none of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated"

But he was being appointed to a higher court in 2006.

[Transient]

Yeah, he was in the rape line but decided to leave since he didn't want to commit a party foul.

[YourGrandpa]

In your OPINION, of course.

I think by now it's pretty clear to you why they can't prosecute or remove Kavanaugh's appointment to SCOTUS. There really is nothing but hearsay or conjecture as evidence, all of which has been denied and contested. But you're so deep down the rabbit hole you'll never admit it.

[Transient]

He wasn't on trial, they don't need to prove anything. He was applying for a job. If you were applying for a job working at a bank and your boss found out 4 women had accused you of sexual assault, you bet your ass you wouldn't get the job. Why invite that kind of risk and liability in the off chance those 4 women were all conspiring together to screw you over? Especially if your response was to get angry and loud and refuse to answer questions directly. This guy's forever going to have an asterisk next to his name because more than half the country distrusts him; his confirmation has weakened the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and revealed its partisanship for everyone to see (not that it wasn't already partisan).

[YourGrandpa]

Comparing a highly contentious SCOTUS appointment to the average Joe's job interview is ridiculous. It's also been established that these women's claims have changed over time, have been contested by multiple people and currently denied. There's never been any proof. Just 30+ year old drunken party stories that may or may not be true, to some degree. If I believed people were telling false stories about me and I stood the chance of losing a great job, you bet your ass I'd be noticeably angry.

If people just took things for face value and were incapable of being objective, they'd have an OPINION like yours. It's too bad for you that you feel this way. Because there's nothing you can do about it. Oh, and "revealed partisanship" in the SCOTUS? LOL. More ridiculousness.

[Transient]

Wow, your ability to miss the point is impressive. The fact that SCOTUS is more important than some rando bank job is exactly my point. And I knew you'd make a comment about "revealed partisanship", which is precisely why I went back and edited my post to add the bit in parenthesis. But no, reading comprehension isn't your thing I suppose.

[YourGrandpa]

Why would you compare a SCOTUS appointment to a regular job if your point was they are completely different?

Why bring up revealing partisanship if you knew it made no sense?

More straws...

[Transient]

[Eraser]

He wasn't on trial, they don't need to prove anything. He was applying for a job.

You're forgetting Gramps is in full lawyer mode right now.

[xer0s]

[Κracus]

He wasn't on trial, they don't need to prove anything. He was applying for a job.

You're forgetting Gramps is in full lawyer mode right now.

More like full ostrich mode, head burying commence.

[YourGrandpa]

You're forgetting Gramps is in full lawyer mode right now.

Sorry referencing facts and verifiable information is so tasking for you. I know it's even tougher for the people who are emotionally invested. Their political bias guides their decision making process and blinds them to any information that detracts from the current party agenda. Poor saps...

[YourGrandpa]

More like full ostrich mode, head burying commence.

This from the guy who thinks he's created a better form of communism.

You should really try removing your head from your ass first.

[Κracus]

Just so I'm hearing this right, you believe Kavanaugh is fit for the job based on everything you've witnessed?

So, none of the testimonies are relevant?

The obviously sabotaged fbi investigation doesn't raise any alarm bells for you?

His demeanor during the questioning doesn't seem odd to you and is what you expect a supreme court judge for life to behave like?

I just want to be sure I got it right that you feel all of those things are completely ok and that none of that seems odd to you?

Edit: Pot here's your kettle.

[YourGrandpa]

I guess you're a little late to the party (probably the story of your life).

I've made my point above. I'm not doing it again for you.

[Κracus]

You mean the parts where you just ignore those points and talk around them while denying any problems? Sorry that's not really making a point, that's more like avoiding one.