Quake3World

Transient wrote: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.

not that i'm defending the guy but the salient word here is "accused". denying someone employment on the basis of an unproven accusation, if it were standard company policy, would be wide open to abuse

'believe women' is supposed to mean 'take their claims seriously' not 'believe whatever they say without question as if it were undisputed fact'

Gramps, I felt you evaded any real talking points here. Either that, or as Kracus eluded to, you're totally ok with everything you witnessed by Kavanaugh.

seremtan wrote:

Transient wrote: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.

not that i'm defending the guy but the salient word here is "accused". denying someone employment on the basis of an unproven accusation, if it were standard company policy, would be wide open to abuse

'believe women' is supposed to mean 'take their claims seriously' not 'believe whatever they say without question as if it were undisputed fact'

I understand this point. However, in normal arenas of law the accused/accuser is afforded an investigation to determine the validity of these claims. In fact, the FBI is one of the best at this but hard to expect them to do a thorough job with a limited investigation.

So to that point, we left this in a he said/she said state and made decisions without facts. The American people were scammed!

Κracus wrote: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.

I didn't expect you'd understand.

Nothing new.

raw wrote:Gramps, I felt you evaded any real talking points here. Either that, or as Kracus eluded to, you're totally ok with everything you witnessed by Kavanaugh.

I don't have a political affiliation or emotional connection, so I have no stake in this game. I don't know Kavanaugh personally, so I can't speak to his "normal" or "irrational" behavior. I do know he graduated from a prestigious college and has a long service record to the legal profession and higher courts. Seemingly a shoe-in for appointment. The democratic party didn't have a problem with the guy either, until his recent appointment.

Ultimately the democratic party didn't want to be the minority in the SCOTUS and Senate, but didn't have any way to legally stop the appointment. So they chose to spring these sexual allegations on everyone at the last moment in hopes of delaying the appointment beyond mid-terms. Then they drag this guy out in front of the world, smear his name with barely vetted information that was contested and could not be proven, only to take issue with his demeanor (pretty petty).

Do I think Kavanaugh partied in college, got drunk and acted inappropriately? Sure. Who didn't? Several women probably ended up seeing his penis unsuspectingly. Who knows? It was 30 years ago at high school and college parties, in a different time with different social values. Do I believe he's a serial rapist? Of course not. Is he SCOTUS material? He certainly has the service records for it. Records that would have never been questioned under normal circumstances.

Sorry if you disagree.

There! A response with some actual content with an opinion. Thanks for sharing Gramps!

Transient wrote: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.

The reality is wizard is that it is time to go back to the gold standard....

[youtube]DWYrcnehito[/youtube]

[youtube]G2qIXXafxCQ[/youtube]

raw wrote:I understand this point. However, in normal arenas of law the accused/accuser is afforded an investigation to determine the validity of these claims. In fact, the FBI is one of the best at this but hard to expect them to do a thorough job with a limited investigation.

So to that point, we left this in a he said/she said state and made decisions without facts. The American people were scammed!

well, this was 36 years ago

all i remember from 36 years ago was getting a telegram from the Queen

Jesus Christ that thing with Jim Acosta? What a manchild Trump is.
Also, lol Sessions.

seremtan wrote:

raw wrote:I understand this point. However, in normal arenas of law the accused/accuser is afforded an investigation to determine the validity of these claims. In fact, the FBI is one of the best at this but hard to expect them to do a thorough job with a limited investigation.

So to that point, we left this in a he said/she said state and made decisions without facts. The American people were scammed!

well, this was 36 years ago

all i remember from 36 years ago was getting a telegram from the Queen

your 100th birthday!

MKJ wrote: lol Sessions.

I didn't like the guy but at least he was smart enough not to interfere with the Mueller investigation. The new guy is just being placed there to kill that same investigation, I mean, is that even a democracy anymore? It's literally abuse of power and makes an absolute mockery of the american democratic system.

MKJ wrote:Jesus Christ that thing with Jim Acosta? What a manchild Drumpf is.

Now he's using a doctored video to justify revoking his press credentials. Fake news!

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

seremtan wrote:all i remember from 36 years ago was getting a telegram from the Queen

your 100th birthday!

it's like having my own comedy wingman

also, why is his face orange but the bags under his eyes are pink? it's like a racist vaudeville caricature of an oompa loompa. given his history, that might even be plausible.

menkent wrote:also, why is his face orange but the bags under his eyes are pink? it's like a racist vaudeville caricature of an oompa loompa. given his history, that might even be plausible.

Hey menkent. It's been years

:olo: and I was thinking it was just a bad spray-tan job.

I seem to remember reading that it's a side effect of some sort of hair growth treatment?

In all seriousness it's probably a combination of things, spray on tan being one of them but the other being a complete lack of sleep due to stress.

Also, sounds like Roger Stone is getting ready for a shitstorm. Better to be infamous than not right Roger? lol... I wonder how that's going to work out for him.

Classic Trump

No it isn't!

Drumpf wants you to know that he calls the final shots.

So President Putz has become old news around here, no one is kicking him to the curb

Lindsey Graham just cracked a joke about how dumb he is during a Senate confirmation hearing. Everybody chuckled. :olo:

Trump is a dumbass, we know this.
The real danger lies with McConnell.

Unreal :olo: