republicans are mistreating the kavanaugh sexual claims

Author: linate ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 23
  • linate
    linate avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 222
    0
    1
    1
    linate avatar
    linate

    i wanted him to be nominated. if i have to choose between roe or no roe, i say no roe. but they are mishandling the claims. consider

    1 she passed a lie detector. 
    2 they can give him a lie detector. in both scenarios no matter the outcome no one will really know if they are accurate. but if the tests are consistent on whether he did it or not, that's pretty big. 
    3. she wants an investigation. all it takes is three days to conduct one, as occurred with anita hill. 

    these are points i didn't know until i decided to look into them more. head line news is poor at giving the low down. as is usually the case, when i'm taking the republican stance, it's because i lack education on the matter. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,349
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @linate
    Lie detection tests are easily falsified and not admissible in court.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,349
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @linate
    FBI has no jurisdiction to investigate where they did with Anita Hill as she was a federal employee. 

    FBI also has zero leads to investigate. There are no corroborating witnesses and no forensics and also no venue. What do you think the FBI can do? Think.
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,177
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    --> @Greyparrot
    +1

    You forgot to mention that the FBI investigation was one that was reopened because it was relatively recent, on government property, and allegedly while Thomas was on the job as a government official. 

    Also, that that reopened background check, would be doing exactly what Senate committee officials are already doing. Which is to question supplied corroborating witnesses. From what I've read, so far none are corroborating it. They would also question Ford, THEN question Kavanaugh regarding those accusations. Then give an assessment of credibility. 

    That assessment of credibility for each interviewed person, but it wouldnt be a measure of a criminality. So far from what I read none of the names she listed have corroborated her story. Her own recounting in 2012 total therapist doesnt even corroborate it. 

    "Lie-Detector" tests though. Lulz, talk about junk forensics 😂😂



  • sadolite
    sadolite avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 467
    1
    2
    4
    sadolite avatar
    sadolite
    To me it's all about innocent until proven guilty. Prove your accusations or shut the hell up and go back to the tar pit you came from. 

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,349
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Buddamoose
    You're wrong. FBI gives no credibility assessments, they just pass the info along to the Senators, who then make the credibility assessment.

  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,177
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    --> @Greyparrot
    FBI gives no credibility assessments, 

    Oh shit you right 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,349
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Buddamoose
    It's amazing how many people don't know what the government can or can't do, or what the proper roles are for each government position. They think the FBI are supercops and the president makes all the laws.
  • Swagnarok
    Swagnarok avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 687
    2
    2
    5
    Swagnarok avatar
    Swagnarok
    That one or even several women might face the indignity of seeing their former assaulter appointed to the Supreme Court really wouldn't be bad enough to negate the positive benefit of seeing closed the extermin--*ahem* I mean abortion clinics in states where the majority of voters have exercised enough good moral judgment to recognize genocide when they see it.

    Going with a "low" figure of 400,000+ abortions a year (though this figure is the result of a long decline, and it used to be as high as 1.5 million in the year 1983) that still amounts to more people than are killed in car accidents and gun violence combined.
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    --> @Swagnarok
    What "people" are being killed?
  • Swagnarok
    Swagnarok avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 687
    2
    2
    5
    Swagnarok avatar
    Swagnarok
    --> @disgusted
    I think we both know the answer to this question.

    I'll phrase it another way:

    If during WWII our only hope of defeating Hitler and stopping the Holocaust was to appoint to the position of Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces a man who had a history of sexual assault, would you object to such a decision?
  • Outplayz
    Outplayz avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,108
    2
    3
    4
    Outplayz avatar
    Outplayz
    --> @Swagnarok
    See this is where i fall off the right wagon. Fetus' aren't people. I'm sorry, but you can spin it however you want... you aren't killing anyone bc no person with an identity is born. Just a small fetus stuck in infinite darkness. If it is a soul thing... trust me, the soul will find another fetus to inhabit. Plus, take away abortions and people will find other ways to do it mostly dangerous. Or, you will be forcing someone that can't take care of a kid to have a kid. I see nothing good about banning abortions. I use to be in favor of having people that are morally against it not have to pay taxes towards it, but guess what... i'm against war and i still have to pay for it, so it's a tough luck type scenario. 

    If those women were truly sexually assaulted by him... he shouldn't get the position. However, how do we know if it just wasn't a butt slap. How do we know if it wasn't just a drunken kiss that he felt bad for. How do we know it isn't some crazy-x that knows see's an opportunity to mess with him. This metoo thing has set up a system where just words can destroy a person before they have been proven wrong. It's not good. So it's hard to take something like this serious that a few random girls are all the sudden bringing up. Sure try to prove it... but how are they? And even if they do... should we punish a teen for being a teen? 
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,303
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    I don't care about what a bunch of sexually akward teenagers did over 35 years ago.


    Even if yhis non rape occured, people change in 36 years anyway.


    Politics is going to get really nasty in the future qhen they start digging up 30 year old facebook/twitter posts... pictures?


  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,965
    3
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    I don't understand why polygraph tests are still a thing in law enforcement.
  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,965
    3
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @Greyparrot
    FBI has no jurisdiction to investigate where they did with Anita Hill as she was a federal employee. 

    FBI also has zero leads to investigate. There are no corroborating witnesses and no forensics and also no venue. What do you think the FBI can do? Think.
    I think the issue is that the White House could order the FBI to investigate (reinvestigate?) if it wanted to, which is what the Democrats are pushing for.

    This does not change the problem of there being no hard leads.
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    --> @Swagnarok
    Yes
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    --> @Swagnarok
    And you didn't answer my question. What people are being killed?
  • Swagnarok
    Swagnarok avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 687
    2
    2
    5
    Swagnarok avatar
    Swagnarok
    --> @disgusted
    So you would've chosen Hitler winning the war?
  • Swagnarok
    Swagnarok avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 687
    2
    2
    5
    Swagnarok avatar
    Swagnarok
    --> @disgusted
    Unborn humans.

  • DBlaze
    DBlaze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 318
    1
    1
    2
    DBlaze avatar
    DBlaze
    --> @Outplayz
    I agree.  I don't understand why so many on the right seem like they have to be pro-life.  If they want to be pro-life, then they should agree to pay for healthcare, welfare, and everything that comes along with the costs of bringing a life into this world.  This is the hypocrisy of the right.

    Then the hypocricy of the left is, if they claim to be the party that speaks for people who can't speak for themselves, who can't speak more than an unborn baby?


    It boggles my mind.
  • Outplayz
    Outplayz avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,108
    2
    3
    4
    Outplayz avatar
    Outplayz
    --> @DBlaze
    Same here, man. That is why i am a centrist and i don't even like calling myself that bc i don't want anyone to think i am set on any ideas/policies. Every idea needs to be weighed on how it helps society. If we take away abortion, more people will be hurt from the implications. But i flip 100% and think the same with guns. Take away guns, more people will be hurt. And what you said i agree with too, let's be pro-life towards humans that are actually alive; have memories and dreams.

    I don't know about healthcare though. I don't think a switch to UHC, only, is a good idea. We have to innovate that idea. I think a mix of what we have and UHC could work. So if people want extra perks they can pay extra for it. We just have to make sure that doesn't only benefit the rich. Everything has a chain reaction that should be considered... including how people will abuse it. Never trust people in power to do things right for others... they will always want more power for themselves. It's really complex trying to move in the right direction... but, you know what... video games have figured it out lol.
  • DBlaze
    DBlaze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 318
    1
    1
    2
    DBlaze avatar
    DBlaze
    --> @Outplayz
    I don't agree with UHC, but if the country outlaws abortion (which will never happen, I don't care who the next Supreme Court Justice is), they like to say it to keep their constituents, but when it comes down to it, the subject will be avoided and they will never see a case.  That being said, if they do, they should pay for the health of the baby's being born under that law.  I'm really just pointing out the hypocrisy of both parties.  Doesn't mean I agree with either of them.

    Guns on the other hand, I think we should stick with the current regulations.  This is where I agree with the right. We can't give the Government too much say into what we do, I guess this also falls into my thoughts on abortion and why they shouldn't get involved.  The more the Gov. has a hold on us, the less free we are to make our own decisions, and our own mistakes.

  • Plisken
    Plisken avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 709
    2
    1
    4
    Plisken avatar
    Plisken
    --> @linate
    Roe vs Wade is just not going to be overturned by anti-abortion activism because of the relationship Americans worked to ensure that future generations would have with their government.  It did however have effects that go beyond the scope of constitutional authority, and over time will be "gutted" by perspective of people who would like there to be a strong Roe style law through the proper channels in the legislative process. Refinements will come out of challenges going up the chain over time, assuming a functional court system.  

    Personally, my prioritization is in a candidate's fortitude to the checks and balances necessary to ensure the liberty of the American people.  We the people don't actually get to choose who rises to power, but it''s still theoretically possible to have some say in who shouldn't.  For that reason, I value someone who is unapologetic about Roe's fate, as that is an indication they will be unapologetic in their political approach to the judicial branch, and the success or lackthereof to the appropriate legal action to facilitate the progress of the human condition.