I see the comments. People want J to do something. What, exactly? Silence dissent? Are you on this site so that you’re never, ever disagreed with? That wasn’t the intent of this site, as far as I know. Otherwise you wouldn’t need all those tools you have like block and mute. If you prefer a echo chamber safe space, use those tools.
@Kronykal Disagreement is one thing. Using block and mute because someone disagrees with you is petty.
People do, however, come to this site for respectful discourse, intelligent well informed debate and meaningful friendship. Not baiting comments, not insults, not derisive remarks.
And J has spoken. There are, as he rightly points out, a range of tools available for use against those with nothing better to do then come in itching for an online fight. People should use them more often.
Other than my first post, which I admit was baiting, I don’t think I was insulting in the least. Anything I said that was perceived as such was said because I absolutely meant it. And I’d say it again.
@Kronykal I'd like it if you didn't bait. I like to view dissenting opinions and learn from other perspectives. Sometimes (even often) you appear to not want the same and that you just want to pick a fight. I love to be a swizzle stick, too. Even knowing that it's difficult to not perceive you as insufferable, which I'm sure you are. I'm also confident that you are probably not bad 😉 There was a reason I asked a clarification and backed out. It was a hint, fyi. @code
@Kronykal I imagine your perspective is yours and if that ruffles your feathers then I can imagine that it is baiting you and makes you feel baited. However, that is not how you baited or what you said. You came in and said that he did nothing wrong and should be put in immediately. As a former 15 year old that was pushed into a car after a football game and attacked and had to fight but didn't report, I needed to know your POV so I could filter. Others might not have. ..... @code
Well, fine. If we are going to have this one out.
As a staunch Republican who steadfastly holds true to the US political system and upholds the Constitution (assumptions, correct me otherwise), you cannot in good faith think that appointment to one of the highest seats in the land can be done because a group of people "believe" an accusation of crime not to be true.
It must be found beyond reasonable doubt not to have occurred.
Otherwise your legal system can be corrupted.
@code @Kronykal @Stace
While I agree that there should be an investigation and consideration of the accusations, I have to point out that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is the prosecution's job, not the defendant's.
Generally, I think it's possible Dr Ford and others are lying. I don't think that's the case, but it is at least possible. I hope people on the other side appreciate the possibility that she's not lying. If it is even possible, should you dismiss it prima facie?
@britt
Not meaning to butt in here. And I'm not trying to do more than asking a question overall. As I'm personally on the side of something did happen
But isn't that the point? The ONLY way to truly hash this out is to actually take the time necessary to investigate fully the claims of both sides, along with the claims and statements of supporters?
And aren't the people trying to ram-rod a vote, trying to openly deny that from happening?
And this is why the yelling?
@InvaderGzim @britt @Stace @code
Investigate what? The Senate Judiciary whose job it is it investigate this has been investigating. Everyone contacted has said either they don’t remember or it didn’t happen. You want the FBI to go around getting told the same thing when it isn’t even their jurisdiction?
@Kronykal @code @Stace @InvaderGzim It IS their jurisdiction. This exact same thing happened with Frank / Thomas. The Senate Judiciary is not even remotely an investigatory body; having Republican aides call people to get the quotes the want isn't an investigation.
@britt @InvaderGzim @Stace @code
This was explained and I’ve posted it a few times. Here’s the beginning of the thread.
https://twitter.com/senjudiciary/status/1042824909267849221?s=21
@Kronykal @code @Stace @InvaderGzim
Sorry, Kron, but I don't put a lot of faith in a tweet from an account run by the republicans that don't want this investigated. I don't think there's any room for us to meet in the middle on this if you think the Senate Judiciary is better suited than the FBI to investigate rape charges and perform background checks.
@britt @code @Stace @InvaderGzim
You’re right. There’s no room for us to meet in the middle on this. That’s been evident since yesterday on this site.
@Kronykal @InvaderGzim @Stace @code
If you want to give me an actual argument, I'll try to listen, but I have not heard a single good argument for the Senate doing background checks or investigating rape, or how an FBI investigation would be unreasonable, or how these allegations are inherently false. Give me a real argument based on precedent, law, rules, and fact. Precedent, law, rules, and facts support the FBI performing at least a cursory investigation.
@britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim
While they could request the President ask the FBI to investigate, the problem I and many others have is time. The ultimate goal, in my opinion (and I think if people are honest they’d admit this is the case) is to push this past midterms. That’s why all of this has been executed at the last minute and why everything has been a stall tactic, including this woman’s indecisive, constant foot dragging on whether she’ll testify or not.
I don’t see how 1/2
@Kronykal @InvaderGzim @code @Stace
So your main point is that you want the nomination approved before midterms because a delay is wrong? I assume you said the same two years ago. Even if that is the case, the time required to do this for Hill/Thomas was 3 days. It's already been more than a week.
Some claimed witnesses have said it didn't happen, some have said it's believable, some have said they don't know. The main one, Judge, refuses to say that to the FBI or under oath at the Senate.
@britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim
Do you honestly think the Democrats won’t do everything on their power to drag it out? I absolutely 100% know they will.
Some say it didn’t happen, so say they don’t remember it but they believe her. That’s nice and all but useless. They can believe her all day long and it won’t make a bit of factual difference. If Judge refuses to say then that’s that with him as well. Again we’re back to he said/she said, which is meaningless.
@Kronykal @InvaderGzim @code @Stace
I really don't think you believe this, but I have to ask, are you saying that without physical evidence, all sexual assault allegations are pointless and don't deserve investigation? Please tell me how what you are saying does NOT lead to exactly that? 'It's he said / she said, so let's not look into it because it might take more time than I like.'
@britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim
No. I don’t believe that. I think some things are more believable than others. So far no shred of evidence has come forward to support her story. Not one. And I know you’re not naive enough not to see the clear political threads weaves through this. Why didn’t we hear about it at all until it was clear nothing else was going to stop the confirmation? Please don’t say “cuz she didn’t want it public” because that ship sailed and she got on it.
@Kronykal @britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim But if the accuser was male everyone would "understand" why he kept quiet for 35 years all of a sudden. In fact everyone would be applauding his bravery for finally "coming out". Politics or no, it IS a huge thing to decide to bring up. Why now? well, up to know he wasn't going to be in a lifelong position making rulings that affect women. Now he may be. And I can see it was messing with her sleep at night if she said nothing.
@Blackwolf @britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim
I don’t know why you think that’s so. It has nothing to do with whether it’s a male or female to me. At all.
@Kronykal @Blackwolf @britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim
Point to consider:
Society is quick to believe men who accuse Catholic priests of molesting them 35 years ago.
We do not afford the same benefit of the doubt to women who accuse men in positions of power of sexual assault or rape that allegedly occurred at any time, whether last month, last year, last decade, or last century.
@ellewoodsruns @InvaderGzim @code @Stace @britt @Blackwolf
I’m not doing this here anymore. I see your comments but I’m done.
@Kronykal @Blackwolf @britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim
I wasn't arguing?? I like you. I was only offering up an example of why so many see the gender of complainants as playing a role ((in what's happening)).
I honestly can't win with anyone, not that it's a game to be won. Unless I'm talking about my dogs, someone is always pissed at the words I put up on screen.
@ellewoodsruns @Kronykal @Blackwolf @Stace @code @InvaderGzim
I'm not pissed! Say hi to the dogs :)
