• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democratic presidential candidates want Kavanaugh impeached after newly surfaced sexual misconduct a

jdog21 said:
This type of tactic to smear someone over an allegation that could be totally made up might not energize the base democrats hope for it might cause reasonable democrats to not show up to vote. Despite what we think of the voters on the other side politically there are a bunch of reasonable people and when they hear of awful things being said by the democrats running for president they might be turned off.
Click to expand...

What if it isn't totally made up?
 
Scarab said:
That's a true story? Even the bit about the gender studies class and the virginity? You've quoted a dialogue that seems unnatural to me, but perhaps you're paraphrasing.
Click to expand...

Yes. Those were the major points which stand out all these years later.
 
Hatuey said:
Maybe I could be a Republican. I hear folks would vote for a pedo Republican long before they voted for a Demo. You can't pay for that for sort of brand endorsement.
Click to expand...
We know who you're hoping to vote for! :lamo

just-joe-biden-holding-a-baby-hed-never-met-before-36221155.jpg
download (4).jpeg
 
We lost the vote. The only person going bye bye because of new allegations is Collins.
 
Roadvirus said:
So much for "Innocent until proven guilty"
Click to expand...

Though I agree that impeachment, in this case, is a tad bit premature, Impeachment is the process whereby "guilt" is determined. If there is probable cause, an investigation should be conducted. If there is substantial wrong-doing, impeachment may be a practical remedy. Impeachment, however, is a trial.

The underlying problem is that the Republicans jammed his nomination through with a reckless disregard for the truth. There were sufficient compelling allegations of wrong-doing on his part that his nomination should have either been pulled or his confirmation slowed down until the necessary investigations could have been conducted fully. Sloppy work often means you have to do it again.

btthegreat said:
We lost the vote. The only person going bye bye because of new allegations is Collins.
Click to expand...

That would be fitting... this spineless cretin should have been gone long ago. After all she has "...a lot to say..."... yet nothing to say. She got far too much credit for having a spine when she has none.

 
Last edited:
Chomsky said:
I believe he was unfit to ever get in. His rant before the final Senate Committee Confirmation Hearing fully disqualified him. So I'm fine with his impeachment & removal, and in fact support it.
Click to expand...

That's what I said at the time. Add that to the fact that he obviously lied about the meaning of his yearbook comments, and he's certainly not fit to be a SCOTUS judge. That should be reserved for the best of the best, which Kavanaugh clearly is not.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Though I agree that impeachment, in this case, is a tad bit premature, Impeachment is the process whereby "guilt" is determined. If there is probable cause, an investigation should be conducted. If there is substantial wrong-doing, impeachment may be a practical remedy. Impeachment, however, is a trial.

The underlying problem is that the Republicans jammed his nomination through with a reckless disregard for the truth. There were sufficient compelling allegations of wrong-doing on his part that his nomination should have either been pulled or his confirmation slowed down until the necessary investigations could have been conducted fully. Sloppy work often means you have to do it again.



That would be fitting... this spineless cretin should have been gone long ago. After all she has "...a lot to say..."... yet nothing to say. She got far too much credit for having a spine when she has none.

Click to expand...


NYT updates Kavanaugh 'bombshell' to note accuser doesn't recall alleged assault

Meanwhile the Goebbels Media and their Party is wiping the goo and egg from themselves... yet AGAIN.
 
JustHanging said:
That's what I said at the time. Add that to the fact that he obviously lied about the meaning of his yearbook comments, and he's certainly not fit to be a SCOTUS judge. That should be reserved for the best of the best, which Kavanaugh clearly is not.
Click to expand...

NYT updates Kavanaugh 'bombshell' to note accuser doesn't recall alleged assault

Seems you have internalized false reporting. Oh well.

Tell me, what was your take on Felonious Bill and his rape? Your party defended him like the jackals in The Omen.

If Democrats didn’t have massive double standards, they'd Have none at all.

PS> Enjoy the poisoned mean the Goebbels Media just served you.
 
NeverTrump said:
Bye bye Kavanaugh.



Democratic presidential candidates want Kavanaugh impeached after newly surfaced sexual misconduct accusation
Click to expand...

Sorry but this is a bust of a story and has been issued a correction by the NYT.
the person named in the article said that she didn't remember any event or attack like this.

lmao

this was ousted as a busted story within 2 hours of it being put out there.
no impeachment because there was no wrong doing.

NYT updates Kavanaugh '''bombshell''' to note accuser doesn'''t recall alleged assault | Fox News

The update included the significant detail that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the supposed sexual assault in question at all. The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed, and has made no comment about the episode.

The only first-hand statement concerning the supposed attack in the original piece, which was published on Saturday, came from a Clinton-connected lawyer who claimed to have witnessed it.

lmao.
 
MTAtech said:
Translation: "False reporting" -- Legitimate reporting that reports inconvenient facts.
Click to expand...

no false reporting means leaving out legitimate information on purpose and then only issuing a correction when they were caught.

The update included the significant detail that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the supposed sexual assault in question at all. The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed, and has made no comment about the episode.

The only first-hand statement concerning the supposed attack in the original piece, which was published on Saturday, came from a Clinton-connected lawyer who claimed to have witnessed it.
 
JustHanging said:
That's what I said at the time. Add that to the fact that he obviously lied about the meaning of his yearbook comments, and he's certainly not fit to be a SCOTUS judge. That should be reserved for the best of the best, which Kavanaugh clearly is not.
Click to expand...

there was no lie the story was a bust.
The update included the significant detail that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the supposed sexual assault in question at all. The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed, and has made no comment about the episode.

The only first-hand statement concerning the supposed attack in the original piece, which was published on Saturday, came from a Clinton-connected lawyer who claimed to have witnessed it.
 
NeverTrump said:
Bye bye Kavanaugh.



Democratic presidential candidates want Kavanaugh impeached after newly surfaced sexual misconduct accusation
Click to expand...

I'm from the same era as Kavanaugh. I ran with the same kind of crowd he did. I know back then young men did what he is accused of doing. I don't know if he did it or not, and actually I don't really care. I did a lot of things in the mid-80s I'm not proud of either but it was a different time, and we did what we did.

The reason I oppose Kavanaugh is because of his angry, nasty, ugly partisan behavior during his confirmation. He doesn't have the disposition to be a SCOTUS judge. The man is too emotional and bitter. If they want to go after him, go after that. These accusations from 35 years ago? No.
 
Cardinal said:
Just about any one of us would be embarrassed beyond belief if our idiotic actions came out. But...did you sexually assault anybody?
Click to expand...

By using today's standards, I would say a majority of college students have assaulted each other if you take into account an assault occurs when alcohol is involved, on both sides.
 
Scarab said:
No, I never did. I still am surprised that anyone subjects themselves to national public scrutiny. To put it another way, I definitely inhaled.
Click to expand...

You never had any sexual contact with anybody after drinking?
 
Mason66 said:
By using today's standards, I would say a majority of college students have assaulted each other if you take into account an assault occurs when alcohol is involved, on both sides.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you know a "majority" assaulted women -- as to say that if enough people do it, it is excused. I went to college and never did anything that wasn't consensual. Of course, I wasn't an entitled trust-fund frat boy.
 
MTAtech said:
I don't know how you know a "majority" assaulted women -- as to say that if enough people do it, it is excused. I went to college and never did anything that wasn't consensual. Of course, I wasn't an entitled trust-fund frat boy.
Click to expand...

You never had sexual contact with another person after both of you were drinking?
 
I find it funny that people post clips of SNL like they are a news outlet.

That is the level of intelligence some posters on this board demonstrate.
 
By the way, the concept of the victim not remembering is not what concerns me. The Central Park jogger doesn't remember anything either. By that logic, it never happened.

And if she was compromised by alcohol, it isn't surprising she wouldn't remember anything. She wouldn't be the first person to lose memory capacity while drunk.

But as I said, that isn't my problem with Kavanaugh. I don't approve of his bitter partisanship.
 
tres borrachos said:
By the way, the concept of the victim not remembering is not what concerns me. The Central Park jogger doesn't remember anything either. By that logic, it never happened.

And if she was compromised by alcohol, it isn't surprising she wouldn't remember anything. She wouldn't be the first person to lose memory capacity while drunk.

But as I said, that isn't my problem with Kavanaugh. I don't approve of his bitter partisanship.
Click to expand...

Well if that is your stance, anybody can say anything about anybody else and it will be believed, right?

Doesn't the affected have to have some memory of the incident to make the accusation?

Also, how are you comparing a serious assault in Central Park to this case?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom