Let's have a laugh

prizrak;n3553594 said:
If you don't think you suffer from confirmation bias you are wrong, we all do. Can we just post political jokes and ignore other people's leanings please?


My comment was in direct response to him making fun of an attempted rape. I don't give a damn how much I may suffer from confirmation bias, the guy is being a troll and has crossed the line between funny and repugnant.

You are right though, he did turn this into a dumpster fire.
 
GRtak;n3553600 said:
My comment was in direct response to him making fun of an attempted rape. I don't give a damn how much I may suffer from confirmation bias, the guy is being a troll and has crossed the line between funny and repugnant.

You are right though, he did turn this into a dumpster fire.

Not that I condone his behavior, but generally speaking we do not hold people responsible for certain actions they perpetrated as minors. You and I both know that had it been any other nominee and any other POTUS no one would have ever bothered to look twice at these allegations.
 
What? Do you know the name Anita Hill?
 
I just marvel at the fact that Sen Feinstein isn't also poisoning the village well in that picture ... so much restraint.
 
GRtak;n3553590 said:
Keep showing your colors. Is the kool-aid really that good?
Oh, stop being such a whiny cunt. Did you lose this?

[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"225","width":"225","src":"https:\/\/i.imgur.com\/FNpYmVM.jpg"}[/IMG2]
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"1280","width":"720","src":"https:\/\/i.imgur.com\/nTtn7fT.jpg"}[/IMG2]
 
GRtak;n3553602 said:
What? Do you know the name Anita Hill?

Now you are showing your bias, to my knowledge the *only* allegation against Kavanaugh is for a single incident when he was a 17 year old. In Anita Hill's case it was ongoing and perpetrated by a grown man. Mind you I have no horse in the race, I don't know enough about Kavanaugh to think either way but the fact that a single allegation of something that happened during high school is enough to destroy the man in the eyes of many is plain scary. What ever happened to presumption of innocence?
 
There was no bias intended. It was to show that such an accusation has had an impact on the confirmation process.

You also keep referencing that he was only 17, that is old enough to be charge as an adult in many cases.
 
GRtak;n3553620 said:
There was no bias intended. It was to show that such an accusation has had an impact on the confirmation process.
Sure it had some impact but should it? Considering statute of limitations.
You also keep referencing that he was only 17, that is old enough to be charge as an adult in many cases.
In some cases it is in other it isn't, point being this is a massively different case from Anita Hill's or do you not agree with that?
 
This is much worse in my opinion. And statute of limitations have nothing to do with it. This is about a candidate for the supreme court going through the process to see if he is worthy of holding the office.
 
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"665","width":"720","src":"https:\/\/i.imgur.com\/pqKdiXL.jpg"}[/IMG2]
 
Last edited:
GRtak;n3553627 said:
This is much worse in my opinion. And statute of limitations have nothing to do with it. This is about a candidate for the supreme court going through the process to see if he is worthy of holding the office.

Really? You think that doing something wrong as a dumb high schooler** and never doing it again is worse than an adult doing something wrong continuously?
**Assuming he actually did it, which at this point we have no evidence for
 
So if he murdered somebody, then never did it again it would be okay as long as he is only 17?
 
Well, this has gone about as well as it could have.
 
One thing that has just come to me, she was only 15 when this happened. The age of consent in Maryland is 16.

Did that help it any Gaasc?
 
i don't know the case you are talking about but...

...teens are horny!
and if she felt violated back then she should've acted
don't drag it back up 15 years later, when he turns out to have money and can pay a settlement


and does age of consent matter when the age difference is so small?
i'm not sure, but i think here it can only be used if there are more than 4 years between the 2 persons.
so a 17 year old can have sex with a 15 year old without a problem (if she agrees at least)
a 20 year old would be sent to jail no questions asked
 
GRtak;n3553640 said:
One thing that has just come to me, she was only 15 when this happened. The age of consent in Maryland is 16.

Did that help it any Gaasc?

A joke would've :p
 
GRtak;n3553637 said:
So if he murdered somebody, then never did it again it would be okay as long as he is only 17?

You understand what reductio ad absurdum fallacy is right?
 
GRtak;n3553640 said:
One thing that has just come to me, she was only 15 when this happened. The age of consent in Maryland is 16.

Did that help it any Gaasc?

To my knowledge age of consent doesn't matter if both people are underage
bone;n3553641 said:
i don't know the case you are talking about but...

...teens are horny!
and if she felt violated back then she should've acted
don't drag it back up 15 years later, when he turns out to have money and can pay a settlement


and does age of consent matter when the age difference is so small?
i'm not sure, but i think here it can only be used if there are more than 4 years between the 2 persons.
so a 17 year old can have sex with a 15 year old without a problem (if she agrees at least)
a 20 year old would be sent to jail no questions asked
Even worse it was 36 years ago, it has literally been longer than I have been alive. As far as age difference it varies state to state I think NY is 2 years difference.
 
Last edited:
Well, this thread kinda sorta lasted longer than I expected. But anyway, the extreme bad faith way in which this allegation was handled by Dianne Feinstein is very telling. The accuser wrote a confidential letter to someone who was never in a million years going to vote in favor of Brett Kavanaugh, which she ignored completely during confidential questioning of Brett Kavanaugh, which conveniently leaked just before the vote was to take place, which the FBI has stated that they cannot investigate, and the accuser refuses to testify until after an FBI investigation is completed...

Does anyone remember all the accusations against Trump concerning sexual assault during the election? Some of those were extremely disturbing. But conveniently they all just... evaporated into thin air once the election was over.

There is no ignoring the attempts by Democrats to delay these confirmations. Which is fine. The Republicans are going to do everything in their power to get their agenda passed, which is exactly what they were elected to do, and the Democrats are going to do the same. But some of these tactics are truly disgusting in their lack of any sort of moral integrity. I'm more than happy to see criminals in DC held accountable for their crimes and removed from power, but there doesn't actually seem to be any of that going on. Instead it's just accusations being used as weapons in the pursuit of political power, and if it fails, then those accusations are brushed under the rug and forgotten.

Personally, I think the Republicans should go forward with the confirmation vote. Allowing the system to be manipulated in such a way would set a dangerous precedent, just like lowering the votes needed to confirm a justice from 60 to 51 back in 2013.
 
Top