Dbqgolfer

10 minutes ago, WyoHusker56 said:

You can't tell me Northwestern only had one penalty in that game. 60+ pass attempts and not a single holding call? Bull 

When you have a terrible pass rush, teams don't have to hold to keep you away from their quarterback.  Not rocket science.

8 minutes ago, WyoHusker56 said:

Ya this was worse than Michigan 

Yep, at Michigan we gave up when we were behind. This time we gave up when we had the lead.

12 hours ago, Nebfanatic said:

Nope, I think sexual assualt is perfectly accurate.

According to the State of Maryland, where this allegedly took place, says misdemeanor assault.

I agree, one of the bright spots today.

4 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

Okay well you obviously aren't looking at this objectively if you don't see that politicians do this all the time lol

 

 

 

 

Pretty silly and unimportant distinction to focus on Ric. Per the testimony, even if it wasn't accurately attempted rape, it was still definitively sexual assault. Same with the other allegation.

 

Don't have to assume a motive of rape to determine a a reality of an assault. 

To be accurate, misdemeanor assault.

5 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Ellison is being investigated btw. It was internal at first but now it’s an external investigation, and his accuser won’t give up a video of him abusing her because it’s embarrassing. I’m not sure what you do with that - when someone says they have video then won’t release it.

 

That said, the DNC has been making a lot of crappy choices for a long time. Like the entire 2016 election. If they keep him it’s not necessarily because it’s the right or smart thing to do. 

I assume legally that a piece of evidence doesn't exist, until it is provided to investigators/court.

3 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Have you read my posts?

I have, and I didn't notice that it was your post that I was responding to when I posted.  Sorry about that.

3 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I got it from Republican claims that Democrats are racist because of who Democrats were 80 years ago. 

 

In hindsight, all these people were wrong. 

 

The question is whether the current ilk are hypocrites because of what Democrats did 20 years ago. I say you need to look at how they are behaving today when other Democrats are accused. 

 

Same thing goes with the claims of racism. 

Like Ellison?

7 hours ago, commando said:

if things are so partisan that the dems had to cook up the idea of these claims...why didn't they do the same with the Gorsuch (sp?) nomination?   and i think the fact that in this case she was talking to her therapist about this assault years ago kind of lends credence to her claims.   

The obvious answer to your question is that Gorsuch replacing Scalia did nothing to change the philosophical make up of the court.  It is assumed that Kavanaugh will change the philosophical make up of the court in a direction that the Democrats won't like.  

3 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

Thanks.

 

I said multiple times today I feel bad too far what he and his family have gone through in this as well. What we're finding out is that the crazies come out no matter if you're an R or a D in politics and generally do some really unsettling things that definitely cross the line.

 

But for me, "we don't bear her any ill will" is miles apart from "I'm sorry for what she's had to go through." The latter shows more genuine contrition and empathy towards her to me. Maybe I'm splitting hairs.

You are correct that it is miles apart. However, if he truly didn't do this, holding no Ill will is probably the best I could do in his situation.

According to Townhall.com (a conservative website), all Republicans and "several" Democrats will vote to confirm Kavanaugh.  

It doesn't say who their sources are.

2 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

Don't know if this will be controversial but I'm feeling good so here goes...

 

My girlfriend and I had a long talk tonight about today but the crux of it is that in our country right now there is a movement of people who feel that they are disadvantaged or marginalized even though they are relatively high up on the societal ladder relative to the a lot of other people. They feel angry that other groups are getting special help or handouts without realizing (or caring, frankly) that it's because those people are worse off than they are. There's always been an undercurrent of resentment against those getting the "handouts" but under Trump it has evolved into a full blown movement by the relatively advantaged (namely people in his base - white conservatives, Christians, etc.) to start advocating for their own needs by claiming they are the disadvantaged or marginalized ones. It's been explicitly or implicitly stated it's high time to advocate for the disadvantaged white, Christian, etc. after years of neglect. Even if punching down at groups of less means or societal standing them them is necessary to do it.

 

The photo is striking to me because I don't know that I heard Kavanaugh admit once today any empathy towards his accuser. He mentioned his granddaughter (I think?) wanted to pray for her. But he only talked about the hurt this had caused his family. He only admitted empathy for a classmate when he could use it to attack Democrats.

 

Kavanaugh and those in his corner in that photo strike me as emblematic of this lack of empathy for anyone outside of one's own bubble.

It was his daughter and Kavanaugh repeated stated neither he nor his family hold any ill will towards Dr. Ford.

32 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

Democrats (actual officials with power in positions of government; not random citizens) don't really care whether or not he did it either, sadly. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah and it was actually the Republican party that ended slavery, which is clearly an obvious example that Republicans aren't racist, right?

 

We're obviously talking present tense here - culture is dramatically different than it was 25 years ago. 

 

 

But this whole thing is an alleged incident that occurred 35 years ago

1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

When was the last time Bill Clinton ran for office? Or applied for a job?

That is relevant how?  You said when this happens Democrats believe the accuser regardless of the accused party.  The most obvious example of this being false is Bill Clinton who at the time had more credible and recent accusations made against him, and the Democrats treated his accusers WAY worse than the Republicans are treating Dr. Ford.  Remember Carvilles "you never know what you'll get when you wave $100 bills around a trailer court" when describing one of Clinton's accusers.

I also notice you didn't mention Ellison, who currently has abuse allegations made against him with witnesses, and if I'm not mistaken, medical documentation.

3 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I tend to believe the accusers, and I do here because I think she knew how terrible this would be to go through, but that’s not how the justice system works. OTOH, the justice system doesn’t apply here since no legal action will be taken.

 

I’m not totally buying the party lines thing unless you’re saying Democrats tend to believe the accuser regardless of the accused’s party. Democrats have spoken out against Democrats who were accused of similar things. And Democrats have resigned when accused.

Tell that to Mary Jo Kopechne's family, Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, and more recently (currently), Keith Ellison's ex-girlfriend.

3 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

And they'd be wrong. You're underestimating Senate Republicans. Mitch McConnell is one of the most effective yet despicable political operators of his era. I almost never think he's pulling strings for the right goals, but he certainly knows how to pull them. 

They've got, what, a month and a half left? It would take them at most two weeks to get somebody confirmed. I could see them breaking precedent to do it in a week if they needed to - confirmation hearings on Monday and a vote by the time the week is out. They'll do whatever it takes to get it done. I've picked up a lot of McConnell from those who report on Washington for a living - this Supreme Court seat is THE endgame for him. He values it above everything except keeping Republicans in Congress. 

 

If Kavanaugh eventually falls, they'll just move on to another name on their list. In fact, McConnell didn't want Kavanaugh because he knew he was a lifelong partisan with a very thick paper trail that could come back to bite him. They knew all of this was a possibility with him. The ones who really wanted Kavanaugh were the retiring Kennedy (part of the deal to broker his retirement was him having a hand in choosing his successor - he pushed for both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, both of whom had previously clerked for him) and the WH legal counsel, Don McGahn.

 

TL;DR: If he goes down, they'll pick another conservative from their list. They'll rush them in under the clock if they have to. Absolutely no way they leave the seat open.

They (Democrats) may be wrong; but I'm pretty sure it's their motivation

41 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Easy. Me. I'm an American Independent, not beholden to one of these asinine parties.

 

Screw these people and their biased ways. 

Yep. Good on you.

51 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

They can't use it if they don't win the Senate. And if they do win the Senate, they'll do it as early as 2019.

You are probably correct.

17 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Yeah. Nice.

 

The Joe Biden Rule Explained

Yep, and if I had to guess, in 2020 the Democrats will use the  "McConnell Rule"  if a vacancy on the Supreme Court opens up; and who could blame them?

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

And Merrick Garland?

My first instinct is to answer "Joe Biden Rule".....but actually as much as I would have hated it, I think the Garland nomination probably should have moved forward.

4 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I'm talking about the letter in support of Kavanagh signed by 65 women, which came from the Republicans so Feinstein wouldn't have ever had it. The Republicans claimed they created that letter and got all those signatures in 24 hours. Now that seems extremely unlikely, but if it's like you're suggesting that the letter was created earlier in case of needing to support his integrity, then why is it only signed by women and why only women that knew him in highschool? Seems that the Repubs knew about this already.

They knew about the letter Feinstein had but didn't know exact allegations, so began the process of getting their letter written and signed.

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Do you think this strategy is in keeping with the better tenets of a Democracy?

Nope. I prefer the days when the Senate, with about 75 of the same Senators, unanimously, or nearly unanimously confirmed both Scalia and Ginsburg to the court, because both sides understood the consequences of losing Presidential elections

14 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

This is where the "This is just about Roe" argument falls short.

 

Plenty of people are incensed and fighting against Kavanaugh's nomination knowing that if or when he withdraws himself, Trump is going to nominate someone with the same judicial mindset. We're going to get a handpicked Heritage conservabot no matter if Kavanaugh steps down or is ultimately confirmed. Trump is too ignorant of a bloke to choose a judge on his own merits, and he outsources the job to Heritage accordingly. This is, and always has been, the grand bargain for Republican politicians who  unceremoniously discarded any shame or spine they once had to continue going to bat for him.

 

Kavanaugh still doesn't deserve to sit on the Supreme Court. His nomination should still be fought by people. And not because we're going to magically change the composition of the Supreme Court. 

I disagree.  The hope here for Democrats is that if they can sink this nomination,  there will not be enough time to confirm a different nominee before the midterms, and if they can win the Senate (Not probable,  but certainly possible) they will have the votes to reject any nominee Trump nominates. 

3 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

Almost all of the teachers who sleep with students are discovered because the boy tells his friends about it.

I'm sure that's true, but there's a big difference between telling/bragging to  people you're sleeping with a teacher and running around telling people you assaulted someone.

3 hours ago, RedDenver said:

How the hell did the Republicans get a letter and 65 signatures in the 24 hours between the story getting out and the letter being put out? Seems like Feinstein wasn't the only politician sitting on the evidence. The whole lot of them should be investigated.

 

Other people having heard about it 35 years ago lends credence to the victim's claims regardless of how the information got out.

If I recall correctly, Sen. Feinstein had the letter, but didn't share it with anyone on the committee.  There were rumors that the letter contained allegations that would call into question the integrity of Kavanaugh.  Republicans were not sitting on any evidence, because Feinstein wasn't sharing it with anyone.  But they did know that Kavanaugh's integrity was potentially going to be questioned.  In this situation, it is not odd, rare, wrong nor unethical, to have 65 women who have known and/or worked for him for many years, sign a letter vouching for his integrity.