[Stormsmith]

Kavanaugh has never been accused of rape.

I don't know what you would call what she alleged happened but it certainly wasn't rape.

Attempted rape. It's a federal offence.

[Godstud]

Republicans are very good apologists for rape and kiddy-fiddling. Is that why most of their candidates do it?

[blackjack21]

Attempted rape. It's a federal offence.

No. It's typically a state matter. The federal government handles aggravated sexual abuse, which is pretty much something that is limited to federal prisons.

18 U.S. Code Chapter 109A - SEXUAL ABUSE
They pretty much are all constructed like this:

Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency,

Pretty much, if you aren't in the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, the federal government defers to the states. That means if you got raped in the US territorial jurisdiction of a post office, the FBI would investigate. If you got raped outside of it where the PO Boxes are there for the public, it would be a matter for state and local authorities.

I figure you are a Canadian like @Godstud, or you wouldn't say such ignorant things.

[Godstud]

I figure you are a Canadian like @Godstud, or you wouldn't say such ignorant things.

I figure you're an American @blackjack21, or you wouldn't say such asshole and arrogant things.

Republicans support their candidates, even if they're child molesters or rapists. That's simply fact. Trump's your man after all @blackjack21, right? He's a shining example of this.

[blackjack21]

I figure you're an American @blackjack21, or you wouldn't say such asshole and arrogant things.

There seems to be a central tendency among Canadians to have very wrong ideas about America. Stormsmith's latest comments are just another example. It could be understandable to the extent that she listens to US Democrat Senators on the Senate Judciary Committee who seem to have less knowledge of basic American civics than a high school student. The Canadian school system should teach Canadians more about America so they won't be so inclined to listen to and repeat the nonsense of US politicians.

Republicans support their candidates, even if they're child molesters or rapists.

I haven't seen or supported an admitted or convicted rapist or an admitted or convicted child molester running for office as a Republican as yet. It seems "rapist" or "child molester" is just the new "racist", "sexist" or "homophobe" since nobody takes the latter charges seriously anymore. So the Democrats have to ramp up their blood libels to get attention.

Trump's your man after all @blackjack21, right?

I like Trump, because he's wreaking havoc on the establishment. I do not champion his morality per se. In fact, I do not look to politicians for guidance on moral matters, and would suggest that others should not look to politicians for an example of moral behavior to model themselves. Also, I am not a Republican and haven't been one for 12 years now.

[Libertarian353]

@Godstud

Why you trying to reason with a man who is so determine to kill Blacks, he read the turner diaries every night before bed? This guy probably jerk off to the curb stomp scene in american history X.

You're not going to convince him and he's well aware of his absurdities.

[blackjack21]

Why you trying to reason with a man who is so determine to kill Blacks, he read the turner diaries every night before bed?

I have never tried to kill any blacks. I have not read the Turner diaries. Why do you propagate such fictions?

This guy probably jerk off to the curb stomp scene in american history X.

I have seen that movie. It did not inspire me to masturbate.

You're not going to convince him and he's well aware of his absurdities.

I don't think refuting liberal ideology is absurd. As I've explained to you many times, between you and me, I am the libertarian. You are not. You are an egalitarian.

The topic at hand is Dianne Feinstein referring a letter ostensibly from Ford to the FBI alleging a rape in the DC area in the early 1980s when both Kavanaugh and Ford were minors. There are no witnesses, other than a hostile witness that claims the alleged rape never occurred. It is past the statute of limitations. There is no forensic evidence.

Basically, it is a charge made to appeal to conservatives who wish to protect women.

While I am not an egalitarian, I insist on egalitarian principles from people pushing egalitarianism. From an egalitarian perspective, rape is an outmoded concept because women are no longer the chattel property of men. Therefore, rape does not impose a financial burden on men. Women do not have to maintain virginity to marry and can carry on a profession independently of a man. Times have changed, and so should the statutes. Rape should be treated no differently than assault and battery. Rape is essentially an aggravated assault. It constitutes battery if it causes any injury requiring medical attention; for example, pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease. Since it is no more significant than an assault, it should carry no more stigma than participating in a bar fight.

[Godstud]

@blackjack21 I forgot that you're just totally ignorant about most things, since you question Canadians ability to know what's going on in American politics when we're inundated with American news and TV on a daily basis. American education is sub-par, and not Canadian education. We don't have a Betsy DeVos ruining our system, because we have people who care about education.

Your posts exemplify arrogance, ignorance, and bigotry, and you turn to personal insults when anyone dissents with your moronic opinions. Don't mention my name anymore, or make asshole comments about where I live. I don't give a fuck what an ignorant, jealous, racist thinks of me. There are many intelligent Pofoers who aren't assholes, that I can converse with.

[Drlee]

This thread, and indeed the entire movement points out just how remarkably difficult "justice" is to achieve. Indeed just how hard it is to define.

WITHOUT MAKING ANY JUDGMENT ON KAVANAUGH AT ALL! (did you read this. Did you?)

What was the state of the country 30 years ago? Were we as enlightened then about appropriate behaviors?
The term "date rape" for example, was not even well known until about 1990. This was not discussed much. That is not to say that forcing yourself on a drunk woman was ever right. It is to say that there was a time when men really did not think about it much. Horrible? Sure. At the same time we used to jail homosexuals. Times change.

Do we believe in the laws of evidence? Do we actually believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty? We used to. And this belief shielded a lot of bad behavior. Choose your poison.

Do we believe in redemption? If someone lives a good life and does not commit any offenses how long before we decide that any attempt to punish someone for a youthful event simply does not serve our purposes? I totally get the 'example' argument. But is it in our best interest to use it? Putting the shoe on the other foot. If an 18 year old senior girl had sex with her 17 year old senior boyfriend does that permanently disqualify her from any public role? That is rape in some jurisdictions you know.

Now regarding Kavanaugh.

I have no way of knowing with any certainty if this event happened or not and if it did whether it happened like the woman remembers it. We will never really know. It does not matter what my suspicions are really. I am just one voter. What does disturb me is the Republican Party's obvious attempt to cover it up. Their attempt to make it impossible for the woman to testify. Their denying release of documents that may show this guy lying to congress. I can see absolutely no reason to rush on this nomination. They held up (in an act of political chicanery that is disgusting IMO) an Obama nominee for nearly a year so they could subvert the intention of the constitution but now they have to move in a few days? Pure political fear on their part that after the election they will have lost their majority. No excuse. Grassley has lost any claim to honorable service over this. He should be defeated when he runs and women should be the ones to defeat him.

We should have clear and open hearings about this. If the administration and republican senate can't accept that then they should reject this candidate and get another one. It is as simple as that.

[SpecialOlympian]

Lmao

The goodest, bigliest, best brains.

[blackjack21]

@blackjack21 I forgot that you're just totally ignorant about most things, since you question Canadians ability to know what's going on in American politics when we're inundated with American news and TV on a daily basis. American education is sub-par, and not Canadian education. We don't have a Betsy DeVos ruining our system, because we have people who care about education.

The problem is not Betsy DeVos. It is people like Senator Gillibrand calling for an FBI investigation. What would they investigate? It is not a federal offense. Ford could make it a federal offense by claiming that Kavanaugh raped her in a post office or a federal prison, or in a federally administered maritime area. So far, she has not. Yet, Stormsmith asserts, with absolutely no cited authority whatsoever, that it is a federal offense. I cited all the areas of Title 18 of the United States code that deal with sex crimes. That demonstrates that you Canadians are clearly either misinformed or poorly educated, because you make assertions about the law in other countries and cannot cite the law. Yet, it can be cited for you and demonstrate that your are emphatically wrong.

What was the state of the country 30 years ago? Were we as enlightened then about appropriate behaviors?
The term "date rape" for example, was not even well known until about 1990. This was not discussed much. That is not to say that forcing yourself on a drunk woman was ever right. It is to say that there was a time when men really did not think about it much. Horrible? Sure. At the same time we used to jail homosexuals. Times change.

Young girls were encouraged to be just like the guys. So they went to the parties and drank copious amounts of alcohol too. These are the sorts of jeans women wore back in the late 1970s and early 1980s.



This isn't about enlightenment. Today's zeitgeist isn't enlightenment. It's a product of women finding that what they were encouraged to do has not made them happy people. Feminism is a path to misery for most women, because women are not men. They cannot find happiness acting like men, or pretending that they react the same way to things as men.

Do we believe in the laws of evidence? Do we actually believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty? We used to. And this belief shielded a lot of bad behavior. Choose your poison.

We are literally being asked to consider whether someone is suitable to sit on the Supreme Court on the basis of how he is alleged to have behaved at a high school party while 17 years old. What is alleged now wouldn't have been prosecuted in 1982. It probably wouldn't involve calling the police.

What does disturb me is the Republican Party's obvious attempt to cover it up.

The Democrats had this letter for months, and went straight through the hearings and never so much as asked a single question. How do you construe that to mean the Republican party is trying to cover it up? Ford gave an interview to the Washington Post on the grounds that it not be published, while ostensibly telling Anna Eshoo that she wanted her comments to remain confidential. Nobody who wants to remain anonymous goes to the Washington Post. She's a college professor, not some ding bat bar floozy. We have to assume that she knows exactly what she's doing, because she's purporting to be among the best and brightest of women in the United States. We have to assume the same of Anna Eshoo and Dianne Feinstein.

Their attempt to make it impossible for the woman to testify.

The Democrats decided not to bring the story up until after the hearings as a deliberate attempt at delaying the vote. Ford has been invited to testify. It is she who is trying to lay all sorts of conditions, such as requesting the FBI investigate a non-federal crime that is about 30 years passed the statute of limitations. By what authority would they do this? She wants Kavanaugh to testify first. In what sort of criminal accusation proceeding in Western Civilization over the last 1000 years has a defendant been required to defend allegations without hearing them first? All the instances that come to mind are ecclesiastical courts, star chambers, dictatorships and communist party shit. Do you have any reputable examples within the last 1000 years of Western justice where such a procedural irregularity was allowed? Ford is demanding that Kavanaugh not be present in the room when she makes her statements. The constitution of the United States indicates clearly that a defendant has the right to confront their accuser. Exactly what part of Ford's demands do you think are fair?

Their denying release of documents that may show this guy lying to congress.

They want access to Bush administration emails that Kavanaugh did not author, but did receive. It's privileged executive department information and is not germane to Kavanaugh's judicial reasoning. What other documents could you possibly be talking about?

I can see absolutely no reason to rush on this nomination.

There is no rush. We've been hearing about this since July. The Democrats just want to delay it until after the mid-terms with the vague hope that if they can retake the Senate, they can block his confirmation. The Supreme Court convenes in October. There's nothing unreasonable about wanting to complete the process. The Democrats indicated early on that they would do anything in their power to block the confirmation proceedings. This is all they have left.

They held up (in an act of political chicanery that is disgusting IMO) an Obama nominee for nearly a year so they could subvert the intention of the constitution but now they have to move in a few days?

What they did is no different from what previous Congresses did to other presidents late in their last term in office. President Trump is in the second year of his first term.

Pure political fear on their part that after the election they will have lost their majority. No excuse.

The Republican party is in the process of purging lily livered losers like Jeff Flake and Bob Corker. So they have reasons to be apprehensive. However, they have the majority now, and there is no question about Kavanaugh's judicial abilities.

[Drlee]

Well blackjack the picture of the jeans is the best troll you have ever posted and you have posted some good ones.

As for the rest of it, not so much. There is no excuse for the republicans not delaying this vote until a hearing can be held. None at all. Your fantasy that they would care to fill the court before the upcoming session won't fly. They were just fine with an eight person court under Obama's watch.

I know you like to argue with me but I am on your side when it comes to these allegations. I said before that this is a state issue and not federal.

As for your claim that testimony before congress is privileged executive information then I suppose you would assert that obstruction of justice can be covered by executive privilege. I do not.

[Stormsmith]

Dr Lee wrote:

We should have clear and open hearings about this. If the administration and republican senate can't accept that then they should reject this candidate and get another one. It is as simple as that.

And yet oddly, the GOP are behaving much worse than they did during the Anita Hill investigation in 1991. The president must be hassling them to get this guy signed up before the elections, which in many states seem to be already underway. And I wonder if the GOP are worrying that the loss of one or both of the houses is going to invite payback.

I wish American women would walk all weekend with my work-to-rule banner. This is an unprecedented power-play time. Your unemployment rate is so low, if they ever did strike, they'd be unlikely to get fired because there isn't anyone to hire. Surely there is someone less controversial than Kavenaugh that could be appointed.

[blackjack21]

Surely there is someone less controversial than Kavenaugh that could be appointed.

Kavanaugh isn't controversial at all.

[Rich]

Surely there is someone less controversial than Kavenaugh that could be appointed.

The Supreme Senate (aka the supreme court) is a legislative body. Its just under America's pathetic joke of a constitution everyone pretends it isn't. It was the Democrats that got rid of the sixty vote rule, of course that's going to lead to more extreme nominees.

[SpecialOlympian]

I think, "We will put a rapist on the SCOTUS and you can't fucking stop us" is a really good look for the GOP and I'm glad they're pursuing it.

Kavanaugh already committed perjury pretending he never received stolen Democrat emails with the RE: line reading, "LOL stole these, enjoy!" so hopefully he can be recalled.

But Kavanaugh is just a plaster alabaster mold of a series of shitmongers who represent the GOP. They want to pass this specific guy, despite there being dozens of vat grown clones who didn't rape anyone waiting in the wings, because Kavanaugh represents something to the GOP and its mouthbreathing base: white power. If a white man ever has to suffer consequences then it shakes the core of conservatism.

Also not a single person who supports Kavanaugh has given a reason to support him other than "she a dumb whore" because AMERICAN conservatism is an intellectual black hole that only sucks in white male resentment and will never be filled.

[blackjack21]

Also not a single person who supports Kavanaugh has given a reason to support him other than "she a dumb whore" because AMERICAN conservatism is an intellectual black whole that only sucks in white male resentment and will never be filled.

We've never had a Supreme Court justice named Brett. It's time we break that glass ceiling for people named Brett. However, just like the White House, I feel it's time that we put a dwarf on the Supreme Court. We need midgets running Washington DC to prove that we are not bigots. Since they are much smaller in stature, naturally they will want to shrink the size of government.

[SpecialOlympian]

It's nice to see you make an actual joke, blackjack.

[Istanbuller]

Did any one see the woman alive yet? I have doubts that a person called Christine Blasey Ford ever exists.

It is just a fabricated story. The woman refuses to testify. She refuses to make public appearance. But she demands a criminal investigation into a thing which cannot be proven anyhow. What a bitch.

[SpecialOlympian]

The GOP is trying to fuck the negotiations with Blasey Ford as hard as possible because if they make it too shitty she might not show up. Then they can finally realize their dream: putting a rapist on the SCOTUS.

Here's how purposely stupid they've been with negotiating the meeting with Blasey Ford: they were originally going to make her sit right next to Kavanaugh, at the same table, while testifying. Boy oh boy, I bet every sexual assault victim loves sitting next to their predator.