• 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!

Should the FBI investigate allegations against Kavanaugh? Report to Judiciary Committee

Should the FBI investigate allegations against Kavanaugh before Confirmation? Report to Judiciary Co

  • Should the FBI investigate allegations against Kavanaugh before Confirmation? Yes why

    Votes: 10 40.0%

  • Should the FBI investigate allegations against Kavanaugh before Confirmation? No why

    Votes: 15 60.0%

  • Report would be provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Yes why

    Votes: 4 16.0%

  • Report would be provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee. No why

    Votes: 4 16.0%
  • Total voters
    25
haymarket said:
Better not look or you might find something you did not want to find. If you don't look - then you can never find it.

That seems to be the attitude here in refusing to have the FBI investigate.
Click to expand...

For the FBI to investigate they would need to have a purpose. What could they possibly uncover that could not be uncovered when she testifies before congress?
 
Kreton said:
For the FBI to investigate they would need to have a purpose. What could they possibly uncover that could not be uncovered when she testifies before congress?
Click to expand...

Yes - the purpose is part of the background check function.
 
Kreton said:
Why is she a radical? Simply because she is saying something you would prefer she wouldn't?
Click to expand...

If she were not a radical she would not have attempted to scrub her radical past from multiple social media sites.
 
marke said:
If she were not a radical she would not have attempted to scrub her radical past from multiple social media sites.
Click to expand...

Really? Maybe I missed that. But lets imagine she did for the sake of argument. What did she post on social media 30 years ago that made it ok for her to be sexually assaulted? Or what did she post recently that fully excuses any previous sexual assaults against her? I didn't even know such a thing existed.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If there are credible allegations that stem from crimes that may have been committed when he was an adult, then sure.
Click to expand...

So violent crimes don't count if you're under 18? It's unnerving to think that we could have a Supreme Court justice who might believe precisely that. At least, about himself.
 
Phys251 said:
So violent crimes don't count if you're under 18? It's unnerving to think that we could have a Supreme Court justice who might believe precisely that. At least, about himself.
Click to expand...

Allegations of crimes that may have been committed decades ago when the person accused was a teen shouldn't count for much, IMO.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Allegations of crimes that may have been committed decades ago when the person accused was a teen shouldn't count for much, IMO.
Click to expand...

I already implied that the allegations are simply that for now. Perhaps reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

And if they turn out to be true, why are you okay with violent crime by a teenager?
 
Kreton said:
Really? Maybe I missed that. But lets imagine she did for the sake of argument. What did she post on social media 30 years ago that made it ok for her to be sexually assaulted? Or what did she post recently that fully excuses any previous sexual assaults against her? I didn't even know such a thing existed.
Click to expand...

If she was wronged and is just now at the last second trying to be heard then let her speak. But we should never blindly believe her allegation at the expense of the Kavanaugh family and the whole nation. Just because democrats have thrown out these allegations at this very specific time, especially since they sat on this info for months without saying anything before, and she sat on this info for more than 35 years without bringing it out before, makes the whole of the allegations appear to be just another lying democrat whack job. Get the woman and the Judge before Congress and let Congress judge between them both.
 
Phys251 said:
I already implied that the allegations are simply that for now. Perhaps reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

And if they turn out to be true, why are you okay with violent crime by a teenager?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty good at reading comprehension. Perhaps writing clarity is the problem, since we must put in a personal zinger or two.

And no, I don't think that possibly having made a mistake as a juvenile is a big deal.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'm pretty good at reading comprehension. Perhaps writing clarity is the problem, since we must put in a personal zinger or two.
Click to expand...

You obviously missed the part where I already implied that the allegations are just that for now. So let me help you:

Phys251 said:
So violent crimes don't count if you're under 18? It's unnerving to think that we could have a Supreme Court justice who might believe precisely that. At least, about himself.
Click to expand...

You obviously missed the word "might," so I'm emphasizing it now so that you may clearly see it and at last understand what I really said.

Dittohead not! said:
And no, I don't think that possibly having made a mistake as a juvenile is a big deal.
Click to expand...

A mistake?? Forcibly holding down a girl while feeling her up against her consent is a "mistake"??

That exact word was used by Michael Vick's defenders. Just as it was pathetic to call organizing dogfighting a "mistake," it is pathetic to call sexual assault, if confirmed here, a "mistake." Your standards of how young men should behave are unacceptably low.
 
Phys251 said:
You obviously missed the part where I already implied that the allegations are just that for now. So let me help you:



You obviously missed the word "might," so I'm emphasizing it now so that you may clearly see it and at last understand what I really said.



A mistake?? Forcibly holding down a girl while feeling her up against her consent is a "mistake"??

That exact word was used by Michael Vick's defenders. Just as it was pathetic to call organizing dogfighting a "mistake," it is pathetic to call sexual assault, if confirmed here, a "mistake." Your standards of how young men should behave are unacceptably low.
Click to expand...

Point is, he was not a young man. He was a boy. Were there credible evidence he had done such a thing as an adult, then it should be investigated to see if there is any truth to it.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Point is, he was not a young man. He was a boy. Were there credible evidence he had done such a thing as an adult, then it should be investigated to see if there is any truth to it.
Click to expand...

So you're okay with teenage boys committing sexual assault. Got it.
 
Phys251 said:
So you're okay with teenage boys committing sexual assault. Got it.
Click to expand...

and you're OK with ending a career because of allegations made by a woman that date to decades ago and have no chance of being proven.
 
Dittohead not! said:
and you're OK with ending a career because of allegations made by a woman that date to decades ago and have no chance of being proven.
Click to expand...

Amazing. Every word of what you just said, except for when the incident happened, was wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom