• 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!

Spokesman for GOP on Kavanaugh nomination resigns; has been accused of harassment in the past

OpportunityCost said:
Democrats have come so far from Teddy Kennedy haven't they? Oh wait, Bill Clinton....no...Keith Ellison....no, wait, I had something for this...
Click to expand...

Do you think that the real issue is NEITHER:

  1. "How many Republicans are sexual predators?"; nor
  2. "How many Democrats are sexual predators?";

but rather "Why are there so many sexual predators in leadership positions?"?
 
cpwill said:
Dems defended that guy for a long time, but you are right. After no less than 8 women came forward, and he got caught in the non-denial-denial game, eventually they caved on him.



Oh? Shall we list the Democrats against whom accusations are, for some reason, not newsworthy, or worthy of their being taken down? Keith Ellison is a bit in the news, but I hear no national furor. Ted Kennedy was the Lion Of The Senate. Crimes by Democrats are always treated as unfortunate affairs if anything, not indicative of scandal. Crimes of Republicans? Not so much.
Click to expand...

The other possibility is that the alleged activities of the Republicans are being brought forward when the social attitude towards that type of activity has changed significantly so that it is now more likely that reports of such alleged activity will be made.

The military has reported a significant increase in the number of cases of reported sexual assault, but has concluded that that increase is NOT due to an increase in the number of sexual assaults that matches the increase in number of cases reported, rather the military has concluded that the increase in the number of cases of reported sexual assault is MOST CLOSELY related to the change in attitudes towards such reports (by both the alleged victims and by the military authorities).
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Perhaps. There are plenty of other things in his past that are quite remarkably shady, like his finances, that haven't been detailed to any substantive degree yet.
Click to expand...

And your response is exactly why it doesn't pass the smell test of this allegation not being political. The ultimate goal is about you all not wanting him on the SCOTUS than about Ms Ford, women's rights or the issue of sexual assault/misconduct. Basically it boils down to what's politically expedient. Guarantee you and Democrats won't even be talking about her one year from now.

On the other hand, if I had to answer your original question, I would say yes Ford should get an FBI investigation IF she has relevant factual evidence.
 
No Soup For You said:
Could you and those in the liberal leaning spectrum do the same with Kavanaugh?
Click to expand...

You might want to revise that question because those in "the liberal leaning spectrum" (by which I take you to mean "anyone who isn't as reactionary as I am") would have absolutely no problem with Mr. Kavanaugh NOT being appointed to the Supreme Court if the allegations against him are investigated and found to be (at least to some degree) "NOT unsubstantiated".

PS - The odds on there being any reasonable possibility of a conviction on any criminal charges, at this late date, run to approximately the same level as the odds on the Sun going nova before I finish posting. That, however, does not mean that he did not "do the deed as alleged" - it just means that he couldn't be "convicted" and, since he is a "conservative" that means that (as far as the "conservatives" are concerned) he is fully, completely, totally, and 100% **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T**.

PPS - Please note that if he were a "liberal" it would mean that (as far as the "liberals" are concerned) he would be fully, completely, totally, and 100% **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T**.
 
No Soup For You said:
And your response is exactly why it doesn't pass the smell test of this allegation not being political. The ultimate goal is about you all not wanting him on the SCOTUS than about Ms Ford, women's rights or the issue of sexual assault/misconduct. Basically it boils down to what's politically expedient. Guarantee you and Democrats won't even be talking about her one year from now.
Click to expand...

LOL! No, my response isnt' that. Trump nominated a dubious, possibly compromised candidate who has been deceptive and dishonest in his answers to questions about several things. The ultimate goal is to properly vette him.

Basically you live in abject fear of that because he's been less than forthcoming and the GOP senate is trying to bumrush him through. Gaurantee you'll never cop to that, but it's as plain as day.
On the other hand, if I had to answer your original question, I would say yes Ford should get an FBI investigation IF she has relevant factual evidence.
Click to expand...

Super!
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
The other possibility is that the alleged activities of the Republicans are being brought forward when the social attitude towards that type of activity has changed significantly so that it is now more likely that reports of such alleged activity will be made.
Click to expand...

Sure. So Keith Ellison is coming under lots of pressure from Democrats to step down, then?

The problem, as you highlight, is:

since he is a "conservative" that means that (as far as the "conservatives" are concerned) he is fully, completely, totally, and 100% **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T**.

Please note that if he were a "liberal" it would mean that (as far as the "liberals" are concerned) he would be fully, completely, totally, and 100% **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T**.
Click to expand...

And the vast majority of media are fully in that bubble.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Perhaps. There are plenty of other things in his past that are quite remarkably shady, like his finances, that haven't been detailed to any substantive degree yet.
Click to expand...

Riiiight! Investigate to find a crime. Stalin would be proud. How un-American of you.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Do you think that the real issue is NEITHER:

  1. "How many Republicans are sexual predators?"; nor
  2. "How many Democrats are sexual predators?";

but rather "Why are there so many sexual predators in leadership positions?"?
Click to expand...
Because power breeds contempt for accoutability.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
apdst said:
Riiiight! Investigate to find a crime. Stalin would be proud. How un-American of you.
Click to expand...

Nope, not even remotely that. All candidates are asked questions into things about their past, and he has been remarkably less than forthcoming.

Why do you hate America and our congressional system of vetting candidates?
 
This whole SCOTUS process is rotten to the core. We need a better way.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...igns-has-been-accused-harassment-past-n912156

An adviser for the Senate Judiciary Committee has resigned amid questions from NBC News about a previous sexual harassment complaint.

WASHINGTON — A press adviser helping lead the Senate Judiciary Committee’s response to a sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has stepped down amid evidence he was fired from a previous political job in part because of a sexual harassment allegation against him.

Garrett Ventry, 29, who served as a communications aide to the committee chaired by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, had been helping coordinate the majority party's messaging in the wake of Christine Blasey Ford’s claim that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her 36 years ago at a high school party. In a response to NBC News, Ventry denied any past "allegations of misconduct."
===================================================
Ventry has a checkered employment past. He had worked for North Carolina House Majority Leader John Bell, who fired Ventry after several months over questions of 'misconduct.'

'Sources familiar with the situation said Ventry was let go from Bell’s office after parts of his résumé were found to have been embellished, and because he faced an accusation of sexual harassment from a female employee of the North Carolina General Assembly's Republican staff.'

Sounds like a typically fine Republican. Why would they want to lose such an asset?
Click to expand...

Keith Ellison domestic violence accuser posts 2017 medical document identifying Democrat as abuser

Keith Ellison domestic violence accuser posts 2017 medical document identifying Democrat as abuser | Fox News
 
cpwill said:
Sure. So Keith Ellison is coming under lots of pressure from Democrats to step down, then?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about a requirement that a political party be consistent?

cpwill said:
The problem, as you highlight, is:

since he is a "conservative" that means that (as far as the "conservatives" are concerned) he is fully, completely, totally, and 100% **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T**.

Please note that if he were a "liberal" it would mean that (as far as the "liberals" are concerned) he would be fully, completely, totally, and 100% **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T**.
​

And the vast majority of media are fully in that bubble.
Click to expand...

Yep, sure is, and that vast majority includes BOTH the media and/or voters that support "The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party", AND the media and/or voters that support "The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party".
 
yankintx said:
Perhaps vet there prospective employees? They did not accomplish there due diligence. Can you at least aknowledge that much ?
Click to expand...

Standard processes are followed, geez will you ever get a clue? Are you really that ignorant of HR processes?
 
American said:
Standard processes are followed, geez will you ever get a clue? Are you really that ignorant of HR processes?
Click to expand...

And that made no sense, as usual
 
yankintx said:
And that made no sense, as usual
Click to expand...

You have a comprehension problem. Organizations have hiring processes that a followed, including the federal government. The Senators don't see all the behind-the-scenes activities that go on, AND YOU ****ING WELL KNOW IT. Now move on!
 
American said:
You have a comprehension problem. Organizations have hiring processes that a followed, including the federal government. The Senators don't see all the behind-the-scenes activities that go on, AND YOU ****ING WELL KNOW IT. Now move on!
Click to expand...

Diane Feinstein's driver says hello. But that's different, I suppose.
 
American said:
You have a comprehension problem. Organizations have hiring processes that a followed, including the federal government. The Senators don't see all the behind-the-scenes activities that go on, AND YOU ****ING WELL KNOW IT. Now move on!
Click to expand...

Why do you have to be so damn nasty and personal ? I am thru with you.
 
Last edited:
yankintx said:
Why do you have to be so damn nasty and personal ? I am thru with you.
Click to expand...

Maybe because that's how you come across every time you respond to me. You get what you give.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom