BallerStaf2003 said:

---

sincereag said:

---

The only person to ever have a flawless and perfect record is Jesus Christ and he was crucified on a cross. We human beings are all very sinful and far from perfect. This nomination fiasco is just an example of how sinful and judgemental mankind can be and it's turned this nomination into a potential tragesty.

---

Tap the brakes. There's a biggggggg in between of acceptable sinning between drugging chick with Qualuudes
And Jesus Christ. Cmon man

---

You said you wanted a justice to have a flawless and perfect record.

backintexas2013 said:

---

If DF would have turned over the letter the minute she got it a lot of this wouldn't have happened.

---

This is the one pesky detail that everyone having a meltdown over this needs to keep at the forefront.

If it had just come up out of the blue, this circus might be somewhat merited.

But since it was known long ago, it is clearly a political hit job.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Whens lunch said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

What an unbelievable **** show.

I've never been so conflicted on an issue in my life.

I don't want to discredit women, but it's all really fishy. Democrats have been disgusting through this, but republicans are trying to rush a nominee that might be a scumbag.

What if one of these women is correct? Just a really messed up situation.

I will say, a Supreme Court nominee should have a completely flawless and perfect record.

---

I will say nobody has completely flawless and perfect record. You're setting an unattainable bar. Don't you find these allegations just a little convenient? Where have they been for 36 YEARS?

---

I'm with you, but it's really hard for people who have been abused to speak out. Have you ever seen John Hughes movies in the 80's? Sixteen Candles, Brealfast Club, etc.

Rape was almost a social norm then. Even those movies glorified it as like a jock coming of age.

I just could easily see a woman seeing this dude about to go on the Supreme Court and being like, "ok I need to suck it up and come forward"

I can also see Democrat's making this all up to get back at Merrick Garlands filibuster....

I really don't know. None of us know. Not sure whAt to think.

---

If you're unsure, then just look at the facts and hard evidence and decide based on that. If all the facts and hard evidence depict a sterling record, that's an input to a decision. And, if no facts or hard evidence contradict that sterling record, then that's another input to a decision. As of right now, all the facts and hard evidence points toward a sterling record.

Unknowns are unknowns. But, facts are facts. Hope that helps.

blindey said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

If DF would have turned over the letter the minute she got it a lot of this wouldn't have happened.

---

This is the one pesky detail that everyone having a meltdown over this needs to keep at the forefront.

If it had just come up out of the blue, this circus might be somewhat merited.

But since it was known long ago, it is clearly a political hit job.

---

It is absolutely a political hit job, whether the story is true or not. But the story could be true and the Dems are using it for political gain. That's definitely a possibility

None of us have hard evidence. None of us. And we probably won't. So then what?

Mabel Choate said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Whens lunch said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

What an unbelievable **** show.

I've never been so conflicted on an issue in my life.

I don't want to discredit women, but it's all really fishy. Democrats have been disgusting through this, but republicans are trying to rush a nominee that might be a scumbag.

What if one of these women is correct? Just a really messed up situation.

I will say, a Supreme Court nominee should have a completely flawless and perfect record.

---

I will say nobody has completely flawless and perfect record. You're setting an unattainable bar. Don't you find these allegations just a little convenient? Where have they been for 36 YEARS?

---

I'm with you, but it's really hard for people who have been abused to speak out. Have you ever seen John Hughes movies in the 80's? Sixteen Candles, Brealfast Club, etc.

Rape was almost a social norm then. Even those movies glorified it as like a jock coming of age.

I just could easily see a woman seeing this dude about to go on the Supreme Court and being like, "ok I need to suck it up and come forward"

I can also see Democrat's making this all up to get back at Merrick Garlands filibuster....

I really don't know. None of us know. Not sure whAt to think.

---

This is nail on the head for anyone trying to be objective here

---

Right.

And when confronted with such allegations, one must look at context and timing in an objective sense.

When that is done, there is no doubt what is being done here.

Decades, a generation, and for some, a lifetime have passed since these "alleged" occurrences.


Because such extreme time has passed and none of this was an issue, one should maintain the vision of his appointment with that perspective.

Pretty, huh-hmmm, easy if you ask me.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

None of us have hard evidence. None of us. And we probably won't. So then what?

---

Then life goes on.

No matter what happens, the vast majority of the libs are going to be on the "accuser(s)" side and will forever assume Kav is a serial rapist/college gang bang sex trafficker and therefore illegitimate and the vast majority of us on the Right will assume this is all fabricated BS and a political hit job.

Meanwhile the country grows more and more polarized.

Agree with you 100%; however, I have seen this movie before. I am not optimistic. I would love to have Grassley tell them to pound sand but when you have the whole Dem apparatus and the media arrayed against you with unlimited Soros cash.....hard to fight.

scottimus said:

---

Mabel Choate said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Whens lunch said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

What an unbelievable **** show.

I've never been so conflicted on an issue in my life.

I don't want to discredit women, but it's all really fishy. Democrats have been disgusting through this, but republicans are trying to rush a nominee that might be a scumbag.

What if one of these women is correct? Just a really messed up situation.

I will say, a Supreme Court nominee should have a completely flawless and perfect record.

---

I will say nobody has completely flawless and perfect record. You're setting an unattainable bar. Don't you find these allegations just a little convenient? Where have they been for 36 YEARS?

---

I'm with you, but it's really hard for people who have been abused to speak out. Have you ever seen John Hughes movies in the 80's? Sixteen Candles, Brealfast Club, etc.

Rape was almost a social norm then. Even those movies glorified it as like a jock coming of age.

I just could easily see a woman seeing this dude about to go on the Supreme Court and being like, "ok I need to suck it up and come forward"

I can also see Democrat's making this all up to get back at Merrick Garlands filibuster....

I really don't know. None of us know. Not sure whAt to think.

---

This is nail on the head for anyone trying to be objective here

---

Right.

And when confronted with such allegations, one must look at context and timing in an objective sense.

When that is done, there is no doubt what is being done here.

Decades, a generation, and for some, a lifetime have passed since these "alleged" occurrences.


Because such extreme time has passed and none of this was an issue, one should maintain the vision of his appointment with that perspective.

Pretty, huh-hmmm, easy if you ask me.

---

This is where I come down. If i had to guess, I think the entire thing is made up. But i don't think it is an impossibility that it could be true, and that gives me pause.

BenFiasco14 said:

---

No matter what happens, the vast majority of the libs are going to be on the "accuser(s)" side and will forever assume Kav is a serial rapist/college gang bang sex trafficker and therefore illegitimate and the vast majority of us on the Right will assume this is all fabricated BS and a political hit job.

Meanwhile the country grows more and more polarized.

---

And that's the worst part about it. People will ALWAYS have a horrible taste in their mouth regardless of how this goes.

The country continues its deep divide....

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Whens lunch said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

What an unbelievable **** show.

I've never been so conflicted on an issue in my life.

I don't want to discredit women, but it's all really fishy. Democrats have been disgusting through this, but republicans are trying to rush a nominee that might be a scumbag.

What if one of these women is correct? Just a really messed up situation.

I will say, a Supreme Court nominee should have a completely flawless and perfect record.

---

I will say nobody has completely flawless and perfect record. You're setting an unattainable bar. Don't you find these allegations just a little convenient? Where have they been for 36 YEARS?

---

I'm with you, but it's really hard for people who have been abused to speak out. Have you ever seen John Hughes movies in the 80's? Sixteen Candles, Brealfast Club, etc.

Rape was almost a social norm then. Even those movies glorified it as like a jock coming of age.

I just could easily see a woman seeing this dude about to go on the Supreme Court and being like, "ok I need to suck it up and come forward"

I can also see Democrat's making this all up to get back at Merrick Garlands filibuster....

I really don't know. None of us know. Not sure whAt to think.

---

This isnt about Merrick Garnald. Its about the left fearing they will lose their sacred cow of killing unborn babies. Their hope is that if he is delayed past 10/1, then he cant sit for the next session, then if they can delay until the mid-terms they could potentially win back the senate and vote No.

Bo Darville said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

None of us have hard evidence. None of us. And we probably won't. So then what?

---

Presume innocence. That's what our society of laws is built upon.

---

But this isn't a criminal case. Obviously he's. It going to get charged.

This is a moral question for a seat on the SUPREME COURT!!!

drcrinum said:

---

---

^^^ absolutely. I'm a brave feminist who will take a stand now, but I didn't have the courage to report gang rapes I saw firsthand?

drcrinum said:

---

---

She has a secret clearance. I have one of those. It just requires a national and local agency check. Basically a little more in depth than a background check to buy a gun.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

None of us have hard evidence. None of us. And we probably won't. So then what?

---

Presume innocence. That's what our society of laws is built upon.

---

But this isn't a criminal case. Obviously he's. It going to get charged.

This is a moral question for a seat on the SUPREME COURT!!!

---

And I still go with the presumption of innocence. You're also talking about ruining a mans life. If you think it precludes him from the Supreme Court then you cant have him on the appeals court either.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

What an unbelievable **** show.

I've never been so conflicted on an issue in my life.

I don't want to discredit women, but it's all really fishy. Democrats have been disgusting through this, but republicans are trying to rush a nominee that might be a scumbag.

What if one of these women is correct? Just a really messed up situation.

I will say, a Supreme Court nominee should have a completely flawless and perfect record.

---

I'd agree if the entire timing of these "revelations" werent at the 11th hour. Feinstein sat on this for weeks, weeks that could have facilitated a proper investigation.

But no, this is purely a tool to prevent Kav from getting confirmed before elections.

And now we are meant ro believe that a 14 year old kid was facilitating gang rapes? Secretly drugging girls through the punch. Bull***** Everyone knew the punch was spiked.

Heck there is a chance some sexual assault did happen at a party kav was once at, but its highly unlikely he had anything to do with it but attend. And has 0 impact on his ability to be a federal judge.

If one of these women are correct, they should press charges immediately. Kav getting confirmed doesn shield him from criminal charges. But the goal isnt justice, it is a political win. That's so ****ing unamerican it makes me sick.

Statute of limitations does.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

None of us have hard evidence. None of us. And we probably won't. So then what?

---

Presume innocence. That's what our society of laws is built upon.

---

But this isn't a criminal case. Obviously he's. It going to get charged.

This is a moral question for a seat on the SUPREME COURT!!!

---

But you're ok with him staying on the circuit court. Right?

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

None of us have hard evidence. None of us. And we probably won't. So then what?

---

If you're going to come out with a 40 year old accusation at the most politically convenient time ever, you better have some type of hard evidence. This chick didn't report anything and apparently doesn't remember when or where it was etc. She also slept with like 50-something men before college right? If something did go down, I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a drunken party hook up and now that the lady is a flaming lib, she saw an opportunity to be a hero for the cause.

I still highly doubt anything happened.

Mabel Choate said:

---

Alta said:

---

Nobody has a flawless or perfect record. I don't really care what he did in high school when he was 17. He seems like as an adult he has pretty good judgement.

---

That's bull. You wouldn't nominate a guy who murdered someone at 17 and got away with it. There is totally a line where you should have to pay the price for bad things you did when you were young. The question is, can you prove it?

---

Well if you could prove murder or these silly accusations; you would actually have a point. A murder accusation against Kav would be just as unbelievable as all of these loony women.

I think the hardliners on this thread that say this all has to be made up are dismissing how difficult it was in the 80's and 90's for a woman to speak out about rape.

Both of my sisters were raped in college at JMU, and my mother was raped in Montreal. They never reported it. They moved on bc that was just what you did back then.

I think if you really think about the time They were in, it should give you a smidge if doubt of kavanaughs innocence.

The unscrupulous libs will continue to fund and fictionalize filth like this into perpetuity.
Have the hearings tomorrow - vote on Friday.
End this nonsense.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume a few things.

1. The Republicans have been pretty confident that past 24 hours which can be taken that they have the votes.

2. In the discussions to attain the votes the almost absolute certainty that another allegation would come out at the last second had to have been discussed. Yet they were still confident. Which means they fence sitters declared they were all in regardless of future allegations.

A stretch? Possibly, but its not outside there realm of possibility.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

I think the hardliners on this thread that say this all has to be made up are dismissing how difficult it was in the 80's and 90's for a woman to speak out about rape.

Both of my sisters were raped in college at JMU, and my mother was raped in Montreal. They never reported it. They moved on bc that was just what you did back then.

I think if you really think about the time They were in, it should give you a smidge if doubt of kavanaughs innocence.

---

I make it a point not to doubt the innocence of other people until facts have been presented to prove otherwise.

Boo Weekley said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

None of us have hard evidence. None of us. And we probably won't. So then what?

---

If you're going to come out with a 40 year old accusation at the most politically convenient time ever, you better have some type of hard evidence. This chick didn't report anything and apparently doesn't remember when or where it was etc. She also slept with like 50-something men before college right? If something did go down, I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a drunken party hook up and now that the lady is a flaming lib, she saw an opportunity to be a hero for the cause.

I still highly doubt anything happened.

---

You amuse me. You lamented how Lot Y had zero empathy for you when you went through something, but you are so hardline to anything that doesn't fit your political views. Don't ask for empathy if you have zero to give in return.