Page 2 of 26 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718192021 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 381

Thread: Is everyone ready and excited to have a second (knowed) rapist on the supreme court of the US?

  1. #16
    That's Wacist! Mistwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Los Angeles, CA
    Oratio
    26,396

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Exploder Wizard View Post
    Spoken like true social justice warrior! You must be so proud! The classic fall back position of idiot leftists everywhere- AGREE WITH US 100% OR YOU ARE A NAZI! Crying Nazi has lost its meaning but really what other tactics are there when your positions couldn't carry even an ounce of water in an open debate?
    Xyxox thought Sanders supporters were worse than Trump supporters. Not sure that's compatible with being a social justice warrior, as No True Social Justice Warrior would say that.

    Last edited by Mistwell; September 20th, 2018 at 06:06 PM.
    I like hats.

 

  • #17
    That's Wacist! Mistwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Los Angeles, CA
    Oratio
    26,396

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by cyphersmith View Post
    IIRC (cause I don't feel like looking it up) she has agreed to testify after the FBI has done an investigation. Honestly, I suspect she's the only one who remembers the thing. The third person allegedly present regularly got blackout drunk at that time in his life by his own admission, she said both were drunk, they were 17, and it wouldn't surprise me if they were both blackout drunk, assuming this happened.
    I am really curious what jurisdiction FBI could claim over that case. It isn't a federal crime, and it didn't cross state lines, and it didn't involve an international citizen, or anything which could grant FBI jurisdiction. It seems purely a local police matter, so how can the FBI even investigate it? Despite television, the FBI cannot just claim jurisdiction over a case because people really want them to.
    I like hats.

  • #18
    The Democrats are asking for the background check to be reopened, not an investigation. Here's a link to the letter they wrote to Grassley and Director Wray.

    In referring these allegations to the FBI, Ranking Member Feinstein has repeatedly made clear that the request is not for a criminal investigation
    Goal post shift in 3... 2... 1....
    We've always been at war with Eastasia.
    If other people's pain didn't amuse me, I wouldn't be a GM. -barsoomcore

  • #19
    Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Province
    Crystal Lake, IL
    Oratio
    8,373

    Ignore User
    As I understand it's been pointed out in at least one major media outlet - in what other case does the person being subpoena'd ge to set the conditions or appearance. In other words, her insistence should be completely ignored. Show up (either in private or in public) or don't - that's your decision.

    Having said that, I'm not sure why they couldn't let the FBI do a quick "hey this allegation was made; no charges were filed; no witnesses have been found that can provide direct evidence; no opportunity for physical evidence collection is possible given a 35+ year delay; candidate denies allegations." Assuming of course those things are true - because likely they are (that is nobody has come forward with direct evidence or witness of the alleged event and physical evidence collection would be damn near impossible at this point) and put that in his file and then let the Senators ask away. That way he is under oath answering questions about the allegation.

    Why would that be important? Well, if she went ahead and pressed charges and the locals did an investigation and uncovered some actual proof - then he can't hide behind youthful discretion or 35 years ago stuff, he would, as KC points out, have lied to Congress under oath. They can then impeach him - because while it is a lifetime appointment, Supreme Court Justices can be impeached.
    My Other Sword Is Vorpal

  • #20
    toxic Xyxox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Province
    Aurora, IL
    Oratio
    8,633

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Charlemagne View Post
    (not sure if he has actually denied it under oath, actually now that I think about it. If he hasn't said it under oath, he should be made to)
    During the hearings at a point when Trump was brought up, Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) directly asked him if he had ever sexually assaulted anybody. He stated, for the record, NO.
    Trump is just Putin's little bitch.

  • #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistwell View Post
    I am really curious what jurisdiction FBI could claim over that case. It isn't a federal crime, and it didn't cross state lines, and it didn't involve an international citizen, or anything which could grant FBI jurisdiction. It seems purely a local police matter, so how can the FBI even investigate it? Despite television, the FBI cannot just claim jurisdiction over a case because people really want them to.
    Anita Hill's allegations were also only a local matter, and yet the FBI investigated them. It's part of the background check that the FBI does of all appointees. Of course, such investigations don't usually go into actions taken by a minor, so it would probably take a cabinet or presidential request to get them to do so.

  • #22
    56% of an excuse nail bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Province
    The Flow
    Oratio
    29,860

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Charlemagne View Post
    It's also irrelevant because we should hold members of the Supreme Court (and highly placed members of all branches of government) to a higher standard, and I don't care if he can't legally be charged.
    With that pronouncement, Kid Charlemagne ensured there would never be another Supreme Court Justice ever again.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mistwell View Post
    Xyxox thought Sanders supporters were worse than Trump supporters. Not sure that's compatible with being a social justice warrior, as No True Social Justice Warrior would say that.
    No, no. He supports socjus when it supports his positions and abandons it the minute it doesn't, like a true SJW.
    I can delete you, one click and you're overwritten.

  • #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyxox View Post
    During the hearings at a point when Trump was brought up, Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) directly asked him if he had ever sexually assaulted anybody. He stated, for the record, NO.
    Unfortunately, you're incorrect in your recall. She asked him if he had ever sexually assaulted someone as an adult. I'm not sure why she used those words, but she did. The direct quote is “Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?”

  • #24
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    With that pronouncement, Kid Charlemagne ensured there would never be another Supreme Court Justice ever again.
    Thats ridiculous. I'm not saying they need to be perfect. I'm saying "never tried to rape anyone" seems like an appropriate bar to set.
    We've always been at war with Eastasia.
    If other people's pain didn't amuse me, I wouldn't be a GM. -barsoomcore

  • #25
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,100

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Charlemagne View Post
    Thats ridiculous. I'm not saying they need to be perfect. I'm saying "never tried to rape anyone" seems like an appropriate bar to set.
    Sure, I think everyone agrees. But, you kind of have to prove that, to some standard of evidence, yeah? What's that standard?

    I'm actually for preponderance of the evidence for this. More likely than not.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • #26
    56% of an excuse nail bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Province
    The Flow
    Oratio
    29,860

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by cyphersmith View Post
    I'm not sure why she used those words...
    Probably because she's smart enough to know that teens make stupid mistakes sometimes and wasn't going to hold him accountable to any errors made in his youth.



    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Charlemagne View Post
    Thats ridiculous. I'm not saying they need to be perfect. I'm saying "never tried to rape anyone" seems like an appropriate bar to set.
    So... tried and convicted without a trial is now your appropriate bar?
    I can delete you, one click and you're overwritten.

  • #27
    That's Wacist! Mistwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Los Angeles, CA
    Oratio
    26,396

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Charlemagne View Post
    The Democrats are asking for the background check to be reopened, not an investigation. Here's a link to the letter they wrote to Grassley and Director Wray.



    Goal post shift in 3... 2... 1....
    Yeah this is me not giving a shit what "The Democrats" wants to call it, the accuser wrote a fucking letter which demands an investigation. Here are her words, so there is no doubt she isn't calling it a "background check," "a full investigation by law enforcement officials will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner, and that the Committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions." And in case there is any doubt about who the "law enforcement officials" are, she sent that letter demanding that investigation to the FBI.

    That's not "reopen background check" unless you're spinning like a politician. Background checks do not cover high school 35 years ago with a full investigation by law enforcement officials seeking out additional witnesses for a committee hearing.
    Last edited by Mistwell; September 21st, 2018 at 05:03 AM.
    I like hats.

  • #28
    %0 correct Scarbonac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    It is a Mystery.
    Oratio
    4,693

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistwell View Post
    Xyxox thought Sanders supporters were worse than Trump supporters
    Well, of course; they were all starry-eyed idiots who did not understand the severity of the situation. And now we have a rapey orcish fratboy, who's controlled wholly by his Id, in the seat of the highest office in the land.
    "1 out of 3 Trump supporters is as stupid as the other 2"

  • #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarbonac View Post
    Well, of course; they were all starry-eyed idiots who did not understand the severity of the situation. And now we have a rapey orcish fratboy, who's controlled wholly by his Id, in the seat of the highest office in the land.
    I am afraid that's hyperbole. Even if he had actually been convicted as rapist at the age of 17, if he had sit off his time and never did it again, it suggests he is controlled by more than his Id. Of course, if he had been convincted, he'd probably be not where he is now, and not conisdered for the post. There is a range between "whole controlled by his Id" and "not a good candidate for post at the supreme court".

    I guess hyperbole like this is extremely important for virtuel signaling towards the extreme Left, but if you hope to convince anyone that is not already of your opinion anyway, you probably need to be a bit more thoughtful and try a bit more complex and deeper argumentation, because if you're not, it will be easily dismantled.
    Last edited by Mustrum_Ridcully; September 21st, 2018 at 07:32 AM.

  • #30
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,100

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully View Post
    I am afraid that's hyperbole. Even if he had actually been convicted as rapist at the age of 17, if he had sit off his time and never did it again, it suggests he is controlled by more than his Id. Of course, if he had been convincted, he'd probably be not where he is now, and not conisdered for the post. There is a range between "whole controlled by his Id" and "not a good candidate for post at the supreme court".

    I guess hyperbole like this is extremely important for virtuel signaling towards the extreme Left, but if you hope to convince anyone that is not already of your opinion anyway, you probably need to be a bit more thoughtful and try a bit more complex and deeper argumentation, because if you're not, it will be easily dismantled.
    He's talking about Trump, but I think the shape of your argument holds.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • Page 2 of 26 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718192021 ... LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •