HorrorMovieFans.com

One of the more crazy things ive seen in politics in my time. No need to go over the details as im sure everyone reading this is familiar with the situation. Thoughts? My own opinion is that it was a coordinated delay tactic taking advantage of the #Metoo phenomena. I just can't believe someone who was almost raped would not know where or when it happened not even the year it happened. Interested in seeing how this plays out.

There was no delay from what I can tell. And it sounds credible given his other speeches through the years about alcohol use and excess drinking. To me that is enough of a red flag that he should withdraw himself from consideration. I also don’t get how this is a partisan issue.

Where's the red flag I've not seen one yet.

Tiggnutz wrote:Where's the red flag I've not seen one yet.

A bunch of his old speeches at various graduations and the like talked about stuff like getting blind drunk or too drunk, and stuff like “what happened on the bus stayed on the bus” regarding some kind of college trip. They found a pretty consistent pattern in some speeches and the public pronouncements he’s made. That’s a red flag given the allegation. Which again was already documented 6 years ago.

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:Where's the red flag I've not seen one yet.

A bunch of his old speeches at various graduations and the like talked about stuff like getting blind drunk or too drunk, and stuff like “what happened on the bus stayed on the bus” regarding some kind of college trip. They found a pretty consistent pattern in some speeches and the public pronouncements he’s made. That’s a red flag given the allegation. Which again was already documented 6 years ago.

Would hardly call drinking in high school a red flag and that has absolutely nothing to do with attempted rape. And I'm not clear what was documented 6 years ago?

I don't even feel like it's appropriate to have an opinion about whether or not this took place. In general, this process should be delayed until after the midterms though.

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:Where's the red flag I've not seen one yet.

A bunch of his old speeches at various graduations and the like talked about stuff like getting blind drunk or too drunk, and stuff like “what happened on the bus stayed on the bus” regarding some kind of college trip. They found a pretty consistent pattern in some speeches and the public pronouncements he’s made. That’s a red flag given the allegation. Which again was already documented 6 years ago.

Would hardly call drinking in high school a red flag and that has absolutely nothing to do with attempted rape. And I'm not clear what was documented 6 years ago?

The whole incident was him being black-out drunk and forcing himself on this 15 year old girl. So it seems a lot more plausible when those kinds of things emerge which points to a wider pattern of behavior, for me.

Her therapist notes from 6 years ago point to it being a long held beliefs of the victim that it did happen.

Headhunter wrote:I don't even feel like it's appropriate to have an opinion about whether or not this took place. In general, this process should be delayed until after the midterms though.

And there's why this was dropped this week and not months ago when they had this information. So if it's true that means the dems withheld knowledge of an attempted rape to use as a political weapon to maximize the delay hoping to make it to the midterms. Just my opinion but I think this fades away because neither the dems or Republicans believe it.

Tiggnutz wrote:

Headhunter wrote:I don't even feel like it's appropriate to have an opinion about whether or not this took place. In general, this process should be delayed until after the midterms though.

And there's why this was dropped this week and not months ago when they had this information. So if it's true that means the dems withheld knowledge of an attempted rape to use as a political weapon to maximize the delay hoping to make it to the midterms. Just my opinion but I think this fades away because neither the dems or Republicans believe it.

Anything is on the table after Merrick Garland.

This is a perfect example of why Democrats are in the position of losing the presidency, the senate, the house, and the courts in a decade.

Outside of whackados who would vote for people like Maxine Waters, who is this appealing to? Makes them look like a bunch of lunatics.

The public has a great way of seeing situations through a lens of how they would handle things. NOBODY likes the idea that they could be persecuted over such baseless claims.

Headhunter wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

Headhunter wrote:I don't even feel like it's appropriate to have an opinion about whether or not this took place. In general, this process should be delayed until after the midterms though.

And there's why this was dropped this week and not months ago when they had this information. So if it's true that means the dems withheld knowledge of an attempted rape to use as a political weapon to maximize the delay hoping to make it to the midterms. Just my opinion but I think this fades away because neither the dems or Republicans believe it.

Anything is on the table after Merrick Garland.

You think the public is cool with false rape claims and character assassinations just because the Republicans didn't vote for that guy? Again, this is the extremism people reject. Nobody wants that government.

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

Headhunter wrote:I don't even feel like it's appropriate to have an opinion about whether or not this took place. In general, this process should be delayed until after the midterms though.

And there's why this was dropped this week and not months ago when they had this information. So if it's true that means the dems withheld knowledge of an attempted rape to use as a political weapon to maximize the delay hoping to make it to the midterms. Just my opinion but I think this fades away because neither the dems or Republicans believe it.

Anything is on the table after Merrick Garland.

You think the public is cool with false rape claims and character assassinations just because the Republicans didn't vote for that guy? Again, this is the extremism people reject. Nobody wants that government.

I didn't factor in the leap to a "false rape" conclusion in my post, so you have to keep that in mind.

Foo wrote:This is a perfect example of why Democrats are in the position of losing the presidency, the senate, the house, and the courts in a decade.

Outside of whackados who would vote for people like Maxine Waters, who is this appealing to? Makes them look like a bunch of lunatics.

The public has a great way of seeing situations through a lens of how they would handle things. NOBODY likes the idea that they could be persecuted over such baseless claims.

What do you even know about Maxine Waters, outside of the anti-Trump stuff? Something tells me you don't follow California House reps too closely. She has been well liked by her constituents for a long time.

Worth highlighting that you can’t credibly call it a false claim based on the facts.

showa58taro wrote:Worth highlighting that you can’t credibly call it a false claim based on the facts.

What facts?

It is factual that she has changed her story about whatever happened. It is a fact that others she pointed to as having been there have no idea what she is talking about. It is fact she only came forward anonymously when Kavanaugh was about to be a SCOTUS appointment.

A woman is claiming that while she was 15 and drunk at a party, she was groped by other drunk teens. She has also misremembered these events and told them differently in the past. She doesn't event remember where it happened. Where is the "credible" part of this 36 year old incident?

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:Worth highlighting that you can’t credibly call it a false claim based on the facts.

What facts?

It is factual that she has changed her story about whatever happened. It is a fact that others she pointed to as having been there have no idea what she is talking about. It is fact she only came forward anonymously when Kavanaugh was about to be a SCOTUS appointment.

A woman is claiming that while she was 15 and drunk at a party, she was groped by other drunk teens. She has also misremembered these events and told them differently in the past. She doesn't event remember where it happened. Where is the "credible" part of this 36 year old incident?

His name. She knew his name.

showa58taro wrote:Worth highlighting that you can’t credibly call it a false claim based on the facts.

No you can't call it a true claim without any facts. Saying somebody did something 35 years ago does not make it a fact. Saying he drank alot in high school does not prove anything she said. How can the man even defend himself since they created a scenario of time and place being arbitrary.

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:Worth highlighting that you can’t credibly call it a false claim based on the facts.

No you can't call it a true claim without any facts. Saying somebody did something 35 years ago does not make it a fact. Saying he drank alot in high school does not prove anything she said. How can the man even defend himself since they created a scenario of time and place being arbitrary.

There are facts. A SCOTUS nominee has been accused of sexual assault by a woman who cites witness names to corroborate, and has evidence dating back prior to the nomination that confirm the allegation as a long-standing belief held by them. She then comes out with her name and a polygraohbtest and reveals therapist notes that corroborate her long standing claim.

Those are facts. Defenders are somehow assuming none of that matters and is fiction despite it being fact to suit their partisan needs.

He withdraws, Trump picks another dickhole conservative. There’s no sensible end game here to try and stop your SCOTUS from lurching to the right here. But you could do it without seating another sex offender on it.

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:Worth highlighting that you can’t credibly call it a false claim based on the facts.

No you can't call it a true claim without any facts. Saying somebody did something 35 years ago does not make it a fact. Saying he drank alot in high school does not prove anything she said. How can the man even defend himself since they created a scenario of time and place being arbitrary.

There are facts. A SCOTUS nominee has been accused of sexual assault by a woman who cites witness names to corroborate, and has evidence dating back prior to the nomination that confirm the allegation as a long-standing belief held by them. She then comes out with her name and a polygraohbtest and reveals therapist notes that corroborate her long standing claim.

Those are facts. Defenders are somehow assuming none of that matters and is fiction despite it being fact to suit their partisan needs.

He withdraws, Trump picks another dickhole conservative. There’s no sensible end game here to try and stop your SCOTUS from lurching to the right here. But you could do it without seating another sex offender on it.

What witness? The guy who says he has no idea what she's talking about. Is that who you have corroborating her accusation. Don't you at least need to know where and when you were somewhere for there to be a witness. This is a last ditch effort to delay a vote and maybe the most scummy thing the left has ever attempted which is saying alot.

Why don't you two at least let things play out before having an opinion just for the sake of having an opinion? People who jump to pick a side in these cases are like Sideshow Bob stepping on rakes. It's so unnecessary.