Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don’t think that raping and getting an underage girl drunk was against the law in the 80s? Hmm, okay.
No one would have considered that rape in the 1980’s and she got herself drunk. Like aged teenagers drinking and then engaging in “hanky-panky” would have been considered a parent’s problem.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Here’s just one example. There are plenty of others. Even on this forum, people have defended Trump’s talk of sexually assaulting women as ‘locker room talk’. The information is out there assuming you want to believe it or search for it.
What prompted the OP is that just last night, one of the news outlets interviewed a panel of regular conservative folks who were defending Kavanaugh’s alleged actions as youthful silliness. I’d post that link, but I saw on the television and don’t have it readily available.
Do you understand that what you've posted is a blatant mischaracterization of his comments?
He never talked about sexually assaulting anyone.
You know, its pretty galling of you to say "the information is out there assuming you want to believe it or search for it".
Yes..yes it is. And that information proves that your slant on his comments are false.
I wish all the Trump haters would just stop lying about what Trump has said.
In addition to this whopper, they also insist he called Mexicans rapists and murderers (he never did), that he mocked a handicapped person by imitating him (he never did), etc and so forth.
I've also never had an interview where I'm asked questions about how I would do my job and I refuse to answer. The same way that if I needed to present "proof" of my past experience that I would also deny that.
I guess you want it both ways? Kavanaugh doesn't have to prove his capability to perform this job since he can refuse to answer or have his past deeds hidden from view by his "recruiter." Yet, if someone speaks about how they aren't fit for the job, that person needs to provide inscrutable evidence.
And for the record:
When this happened to Clarence Thomas years ago... we've confirmed 7 other justices without this happening. So don't say "oh, we'll never see a justice confirmed ever again!"
Thats actually a standard set by prior nominees, I believe it was RGB, but nominees do that on both sides, its an "industry specific" thing if you want to keep the job interview analogy going.
I don't want anything both ways, I've been or record here saying I don't trust either side of the Kavanaugh story, his or that of the accusors.
If Kavanaugh is a sexual predator, where are all the woman he recently molested? In the last 30 years? Where are they?? Surely, he was not a sexual predator from 16-22 and then just morphed into a good guy, right? I keep hearing that once a predator always a predator. Where are they? I thought for a minute Lady No. 3 was going to accuse of more recent abuse but 1. her atty is a hack looking for attention and 2. it seems this mysterious lady may not come out at all.. which obviously mean she never existed and all that kooky lawyer wanted was more airtime.
So many "black/white" opinions, typical of conservative (and some other) thinking.....
There is always an in-between!
Brett may be a decent adult. A very decent one....although I certainly don't agree with his excitement in airing and hearing the explicit details of the clinton affair.
What about the old "moderate" type of view...such as:
Maybe Brett is an OK judge and an OK person. But perhaps he is not at the level of being the first choice for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the world?
There is no shame in that. Even the best CEO in the world is hired.....and then often fired. So the standard for this job should be higher than that of ANY other government position. MUCH higher than congress or POTUS or the like.
That's not a radical idea. A lot of guys are pigs and have slept around. A lot of women have done things which our society would define as immoral or unethical also. So be it.
But that doesn't mean those people should have appointments for life to the very highest positions.
Now some posters are trying to justify teen drinking and rape culture of the 80s. I’m out. Best of luck with this cesspool. These are not good people. Very sick, demented human beings who put political affiliation over all else.
What people are doing is trying to explain to you that the law covers what i t covers at the time of the action described. Looking at something through the eyes of 2018 laws is not the same as seeing it back 37 years ago.
Say 2 teens girl and boy do get drunk and sex occurs. If the girl sobers up and decides that she wouldn't have done that with that particular boy if she was sober, it doesn't make him a rapist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
