Jump to content
Baseops Forums
disgruntledemployee

The Next President is...

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

If Kavanaugh was in the military, he’d be going to a General Court Martial based on this complaint. That’s how damaging and scary any sexual assault allegation in the current times we live in.

I thinks there is enough pushback, we used to be innocent until proven guilty.  Prove it.  He said/she said doesn’t work anymore, especially if it was how many years ago?

Her history of activism and support for certain people also makes it very fishy.  We should never ignore these claims, but shouldn’t give the accused consequences without some judge deciding on the facts. 

I peronally think it’s a bullshit political play, call me heartless, I don’t care.  We see how the Dema deal with accusations a la Monica, scorched earth and lives destroyed (not on Clinton’s side for sure). I think we should give them a taste of their own medicine.  

If I’m wrong, I’m sorry for her, but I’m not.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



there is no rush. If he didn't do it then by all means have the vote and he will be confirmed.


Be honest, neither schmucky side is squeeky clean on this. The GOP wants to get the confirmation complete before the next election, so any delay is unacceptable. The Democrats want to drag this out till after the election, so there is no stone too small to turn over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, busdriver said:

Be honest, neither schmucky side is squeeky clean on this. The GOP wants to get the confirmation complete before the next election, so any delay is unacceptable. The Democrats want to drag this out till after the election, so there is no stone too small to turn over.

 

McConnell has no reason to rush. A) held the Scalia seat open for so long, B) GOP will control the senate until at least January and likely 2 years beyond that.  Even if Dems win back the senate in Nov, and it would be pretty hard to do so this cycle, it’s not like those new folks are sworn in right away.

I get that you’re saying the GOP wants to hurry, but I genuinely don’t understand why. And I don’t care about he parties being squeaky clean when it comes to process because neither is, I care more about the nominee being squeaky clean as a person. The last 5 recent nominees basically were and were confirmed pretty quickly with votes from both parties. 

Edited by nsplayr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nsplayr said:

The last 5 recent nominees basically were and were confirmed pretty quickly with votes from both parties. 

None of those were going to fundamentally change the balance of the SCOTUS for decades. Anyone the Rs appoint will be slandered and destroyed unless they are a known “swing” voter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On September 21, 2018 at 3:47 PM, nsplayr said:

 I maintain that if these allegations are true, Kavanaugh should be withdrawn...

Ok...so what is the credible evidence that these allegations are true?  I have yet to see such evidence and have actually heard people deny that's the allegations are true just based off the simple logistics of who was where and when.  If there is credible evidence out there then why is it being withheld?  

By the way, when is Keith Ellison dropping out of the MN AG race and resigning his position with the DNC?  Exactly...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Kavanaugh, you'll get to hear more about it on Thursday apparently. My credible evidence is that the accuser told others about the incident years ago, initially came forward anonymously i.e. not seeking spotlight, and is now willing to testify under oath publically after her identity was revealed. What does she have to gain by going public on this exactly other than death threats?

Let's have one standard for abuse and enforce it no matter who the person is. If what Ellison did or what Kavanaugh did is serious enough and true, then they shouldn't be in positions of power. I'm perfectly happy for Democrats who are abusers to resign alongside the Republicans who are abusers. Can you say the same?

If it's a criminal matter then let the justice system do its thing. But politics is politics and no one needs to vote for, support, nominate or confirm someone that has credible allegations pending against them. There are thousands of political leaders (or judges) that live stand-up lives of public service and can fill the positions vacated by those who rightfully resign or withdraw.

If Dr. Ford's testimony isn't compelling and these allegations fall apart, then Kavanaugh can pass go and be confirmed; if the opposite is true he should withdraw and the President can nominate someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“But she was anonymous originally!”

 

Maybe she figured like many libs that it’d never get to an investigation because in 2018 an allegation would get .

 

The dems sat on this so long, I think maybe they even had little faith in the truth only saving it as a last ditch.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does she gain by coming forward now?

Undue influence on a Constitutional process with, it appears, a massive case "he did me wrong in jr. high and I'll show him."  Supposedly it's a "he said/she said" thing.  Except "he said, and another he said, and another named witness said" they don't even remember the party.  Never mind some teenage horseplay that has become attempted rape because she said so.

By raising allegations in the political arena - nothing via filing charges that is known and no civil case brought - but a victim letter now gets her a real opportunity to screw with this nomination.  She gets to influence the political process a lot more than any other citizen is allowed to.  I can call my senators and express my opinions.  She gets to try to derail the whole thing.

If or whatever happened between these two, it's convenient that she wrote her letter now (and "remembered the incident in therapy in 2012."  Which is when candidate Romney had Kavenaugh on a list of his potential Supreme Court picks).

It reflects poorly on the Democrats by holding the letter since July.  If they want justice for the victim, why not raise it immediately or go to law enforcement then?  If Ford wanted anonymity, she shouldn't have signed her name.

If this actually works, and the de facto standard becomes guilty because she said so, then we are fcuked.

If she testifies on Thursday, I expect her on the talk show circuit on Friday, with a book out by next week, followed by a pilot for a talk show.

Then utterly forgotten by the Democrats and history.

The GOP has been nearly completely rolled on this one.   I give the Democrats props for designing and executing the strategy well.

The ultimate goal is to defeat Trump and his pick.  Didn't matter who it was.  Mid-term elections is the goal line.

Secondary goal is to delay beyond 30 Sep since tradition has it that a new justice doesn't join a Supreme Court session already in progress.  Interesting to know what cases are on the next docket.

As noted earlier, if RBG kicks the bucket, and/or Sotomayor succumbs to her diabetes/high blood pressure/whatever, those nominees' reputations will likewise be tarnished merely by some heinous allegation.

//signed//

The Duke Lacrose Team

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yes she mentioned the incident years ago in therapy, but did she ID Kavanaugh back then? I haven’t seen anything that says she did. Convenient.

 

Edit: The only mention I see that says she named him was from a Slate article. Hardly a reputable source.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, nsplayr said:

My credible evidence is that the accuser told others about the incident years ago,

initially came forward anonymously i.e. not seeking spotlight

now willing to testify under oath publically after her identity was revealed.

What does she have to gain by going public on this exactly other than death threats?

Come on man, I'm not Trump lover and voted for a few Dem's in the last election, but you're stretching here.

1) Besides her therapist...who?  I've seen  nothing else in the news about ANYONE else she told even close to temporaneously.

2) That's not evidence of anything.  You love it when jihadi's and white supremacists wear masks to remain anonymous too?

3) Is she...finally?  How long did that take, and how far does the Senate judiciary committee need to bend over to get this "poor poor victim" to bend over to share her story.

4) A professor, from CA taking on big bad Republican Supreme Court nominee who's going to tear out women's uteruses personally?  She's got a shit ton to gain.  WTF are you talking about.  Between the book, interview and movie money.  There's the fact she's in a extremely liberal start, in a highly liberal profession.  I'll put real money on her getting some NOW award at the end of the year, and this probably helping her move up the ivory tower further.

30 years...of living in CA, in academia and NOW is the time she comes forward.  Not during Obama's time when the college's were kicking out dudes over text-messages and not-really-rape-but-she-said-it-was-after-you-didn't-reply-back-fast-enough.

Plus the new accusations are so fucking ridiculous...hope you never had a drinking game where someone's pants came off.  You're accessory to sexual assault. 

This shit stinks of the gulag courts...which seems about right for where they want us headed.  I guess K will throw himself on the mercy of the committee and beg for forgiveness for contradicting the always right "victim."

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2018 at 11:48 AM, nsplayr said:

Re: Kavanaugh, you'll get to hear more about it on Thursday apparently. My credible evidence is that the accuser told others about the incident years ago, initially came forward anonymously i.e. not seeking spotlight, and is now willing to testify under oath publically after her identity was revealed. What does she have to gain by going public on this exactly other than death threats?

Let's have one standard for abuse and enforce it no matter who the person is. If what Ellison did or what Kavanaugh did is serious enough and true, then they shouldn't be in positions of power. I'm perfectly happy for Democrats who are abusers to resign alongside the Republicans who are abusers. Can you say the same?

If it's a criminal matter then let the justice system do its thing. But politics is politics and no one needs to vote for, support, nominate or confirm someone that has credible allegations pending against them. There are thousands of political leaders (or judges) that live stand-up lives of public service and can fill the positions vacated by those who rightfully resign or withdraw.

If Dr. Ford's testimony isn't compelling and these allegations fall apart, then Kavanaugh can pass go and be confirmed; if the opposite is true he should withdraw and the President can nominate someone else.

Who gets to decide if they're credible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Who gets to decide if they're credible?

In Kavanaugh’s case it’s the Senate and the President. For elected leaders it’s the voters and sometimes the parties. Corporate leaders typically answer to boards and shareholders. If it’s a criminal matter then it’s usually police and prosecutors.

Why are you asking? Feel like I’m not picking up what you’re putting down. Got it, slippery slope into mob rule where accusations alone are judge, jury and executioner etc. etc., that’s clearly not the case here nor in the vast majority of instances. Kavanaugh will get to defend himself and frankly it looks like the senate GOP has zero interest in the outcome of the hearing on Thursday because they scheduled a committee vote on Friday morning so 🤷‍♂️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Kavanaugh’s case it’s the Senate and the President. For elected leaders it’s the voters and sometimes the parties. Corporate leaders typically answer to boards and shareholders. If it’s a criminal matter then it’s usually police and prosecutors.
Why are you asking? Feel like I’m not picking up what you’re putting down. Got it, slippery slope into mob rule where accusations alone are judge, jury and executioner etc. etc., that’s clearly not the case here nor in the vast majority of instances. Kavanaugh will get to defend himself and frankly it looks like the senate GOP has zero interest in the outcome of the hearing on Thursday because they scheduled a committee vote on Friday morning so 🤷‍♂️

C’mon, everyone knows this cannot be proven or disproven 100% and I don’t think the dems overall objective was ever to really assure he would not get appointed. They are trying to get the emotion going for females into the mid terms by painting the GOP as rich white males who don’t care about women.

That’s what makes this whole thing political. If the tables were turned, the dems would be defending their nominee and republicans conjuring up Bill Clinton 2.

That’s why this issue is polarized along party lines. The people who think he’s guilty “surprise” have a leftist political agenda.

It doesn’t help that in 2018, 96.9% of women fit the definition of an assault or rape survivor but the dems need that victim hood to get people to vote. It’s why they preach to every minority group etc that they are victims of the evil GOP. In reality they are just pawns being used by the dems.

I consider myself independent but the dems truly disgust me.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, nsplayr said:

 

frankly it looks like the senate GOP has zero interest in the outcome of the hearing on Thursday because they scheduled a committee vote on Friday morning so 🤷‍♂️

As they should (actually should've done it last week - "sorry, you sat on your accusations for months, Sen Feinstein.  Denied."  Maybe her PRC spy for an aide kept it from her?)

But I refer the right honorable gentleman from left field to the stated positions of, to name just a few, Democrat senators who have publicly decided their vote prior to the next installment of the clown show:

Hirono - "this isn't a court of law.  He isn't presumed innocent." "Men should just shut up and step up." 

Gillibrand "She shouldn't have to testify in this sham hearing." "Women will die if Kavenaugh is confirmed."

Harris

Booker (I'm Spartacus)

Schumer

Haskill.

In fact, with the exception of Manchin, whoever the gal from ND is, and, maybe, Donnelly from IN, all of whom are in very tight races, every Democrat has already announced they will vote no.

So can we concede that politics works both ways and it's not just those nasty ol' GOP senators?

Murkowski from AK is now calling for the FBI to investigate so that will give Flake the cover he needs to give a big middle finger to Trump on his way out the door.  Just like McCain did for the repeal of Obamacare (He campaigned hard on doing away with it, then voted to keep it because he was pissed at Trump.  So much for country over hard feelings.  Good riddance).  I hope to see Flake run for President in 2020.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love watching all social media reactions on Kavanaugh. The most satisfying are the ladies talking about white male privilege interspersed with their discussion of how spinning classes and shopping will take their minds off this horrible injustice while they are supported financially by their white male husbands out doing jobs.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing the dems and movements like #metoo don't have the SA to realize how much damage they've actually done to furthering women in our society. Hire a chick? Fuck that, she might call me out in 10 years for making a joke and I'll get fired. Invite a chick coworker out for beers after work with the guys - hell no, she may try to claim somebody got her drunk so they could take advantage. As a dad I'm saddened my son will have to be wary of every chick he comes in contact with. My daughter will likely lose opportunities because men don't trust her (and why would they not be wary?) This entire circus has set women back in our society.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this article accompanying the editorial cartoon by the author is significant (the cartoon itself is not, frankly). The artist is typically fairly left-leaning, so the temperament with which he wrote to be very even keeled to me says something about this hearing. 

https://www.cleveland.com/darcy/index.ssf/2018/09/kavanaughford_testimony_trauma.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F'in' Jeff Flake.  Votes to move the nomination out of committee but won't agree to vote 'yes' on a floor vote unless there's a one-week FBI investigation.  So the committee that is supposed to do the ground work gets sandbagged at past the last minute, bends over backwards to go through this charade, and Flake votes to move the nomination to the Senate floor.

This 'deal,' hammered out with the Democrats, is supposed to provide balance and fairness to the process.  As if one Democrat would change their vote.

Unless the FBI shows that Kavenaugh gangbanged this chick three ways to Sunday, the opposition/media will claim the investigation is tainted/rigged/unfair/incompetent.  So lose-lose for Kavenaugh.  And for this nomination.  And giving Collins and Murkowski cover as well since it's a woman and she must be believed.  (Never mind the no criminal or civil charges, just a political tactic to get publicity.)

With such a 'cloud' over the nomination, Flake gets to give his on-his-way out the door middle finger to Trump and keep the issue in play in the very close race in AZ to replace him.

He wants the seat to flip because it will slow/stymie/gridlock Trump if the Senate flips parties.

Well played Democrats.  Well played.  The GOP deserves to die off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, brickhistory said:

F'in' Jeff Flake.  Votes to move the nomination out of committee but won't agree to vote 'yes' on a floor vote unless there's a one-week FBI investigation.  So the committee that is supposed to do the ground work gets sandbagged at past the last minute, bends over backwards to go through this charade, and Flake votes to move the nomination to the Senate floor.

This 'deal,' hammered out with the Democrats, is supposed to provide balance and fairness to the process.  As if one Democrat would change their vote.

Unless the FBI shows that Kavenaugh gangbanged this chick three ways to Sunday, the opposition/media will claim the investigation is tainted/rigged/unfair/incompetent.  So lose-lose for Kavenaugh.  And for this nomination.  And giving Collins and Murkowski cover as well since it's a woman and she must be believed.  (Never mind the no criminal or civil charges, just a political tactic to get publicity.)

With such a 'cloud' over the nomination, Flake gets to give his on-his-way out the door middle finger to Trump and keep the issue in play in the very close race in AZ to replace him.

He wants the seat to flip because it will slow/stymie/gridlock Trump if the Senate flips parties.

Well played Democrats.  Well played.  The GOP deserves to die off.

I know some here hate Martha McSally but I pray she gets the seat being vacated by this dickless POS.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2018 at 9:42 PM, Prosuper said:

I know some here hate Martha McSally but I pray she gets the seat being vacated by this dickless POS.

 

I’m too young to remember her antics as the “first female wing commander” or something but she has been a phenomenal senator and an outspoken advocate for national defense issues and the military. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2018 at 11:48 AM, nsplayr said:

Let's have one standard for abuse and enforce it no matter who the person is. If what Ellison did or what Kavanaugh did is serious enough and true, then they shouldn't be in positions of power. I'm perfectly happy for Democrats who are abusers to resign alongside the Republicans who are abusers. Can you say the same?

So who did you vote for in the last election?  Or does it not count when Hillary attacks all the women who say Billie attacked them?

1915781_1652215935031461_786858958056717

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dream big said:

I’m too young to remember her antics as the “first female wing commander” or something but she has been a phenomenal senator and an outspoken advocate for national defense issues and the military. 

I think you mean Congresswoman...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dream big said:

I’m too young and dumb to remember her antics buffoonery as the “first female wing commanderSquadron Commander and shitty pilot or something but she has been a phenomenal mediocre senator Congresswoman and an outspoken advocate for herself, national defense issues and the military. 

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×