Planet Rugby Forum

zzzz wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

shanky wrote:I know, that’s hilarious

Only needs one thing to be disproved and the whole thing falls apart.

The dumbarse should have got legal advice.

Like most SC nominees, he hasn't spent a lot of time on the other side of the bench.

Big pieces of the claims against him have no supporting evidence or strong evidence against them w/out it seemimg to make any difference to the #webelieve f*ckwits - but if he is caught in just one porky, they'll absolutey kill him.


Frankly, the SC process is now broken beyond all repair. The only GOP candidates who will submitt to this in the fututre are likely to be the utterly partisan who will see it as just another part of an eternal, manichean struggle and they will get in wherever and whenever the GOP have the votes. I don't think the Dems are going to like that SC very much.

If the GOP wanted to cause a bit of a brain meltdown on the other side they could always nominate a female judge.

Seneca of the Night wrote:Incidentally I see Ted Cruz got run out of a restaurant last night by this crazy MeToo crowd.

Time they get the National Guard to ... guard them, when they go for dinner.

zt1903 wrote:
What a bizarre question Why would I judge someone's faith based on a high school yearbook?

And why do you assume that Kavanaugh wrote his yearbook page, aren’t these things normally compiled and edited by others?

In the US they write their own quotes in almost every yearbook.

And why should you judge someone by a yearbook? You should see the attempts to "smear" Blasey-Ford via her yearbook, they're fair game apparently.

Turbogoat wrote:
If the GOP wanted to cause a bit of a brain meltdown on the other side they could always nominate a female judge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVF_bH0YbvI

zzzz wrote:

shanky wrote:

zzzz wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

shanky wrote:I know, that’s hilarious

Only needs one thing to be disproved and the whole thing falls apart.

The dumbarse should have got legal advice.

Like most SC nominees, he hasn't spent a lot of time on the other side of the bench.

Big pieces of the claims against him have no supporting evidence or strong evidence against them w/out it seemimg to make any difference to the #webelieve f*ckwits - but if he is caught in just one porky, they'll absolutey kill him.


Frankly, the SC process is now broken beyond all repair. The only GOP candidates who will submitt to this in the fututre are likely to be the utterly partisan who will see it as just another part of an eternal, manichean struggle and they will get in wherever and whenever the GOP have the votes. I don't think the Dems are going to like that SC very much.

Slight over-reaction

Gorusch got in without any of this ‘he’s a rapist’ stuff.

Because there was no hope of running the clock down on him. The Senate Dems initially got behind this becuase they think the GOP may lose the Senate in the mid-tems and they want put Kav into limbo until then. But SC confirmations are an arms race and I'm pretty sure this will be the new norm. Even if you can't block, you can de-legitimise.

Are you suggesting that they would have done something similar to Gorusch if the circumstances were different?

She was asking for it.

Apparently she used wear school dresses and pigtails.

He was just trying to chase the devil from her by griping it out.

houtkabouter wrote:She was asking for it.

Apparently she used wear school dresses and pigtails.

He was just trying to chase the devil from her by griping it out.

This is Alex Jones's (and by extension, WT) take on it.

She wore a mini skirt and posed 'with her legs open' in her year book, according to that loon.

According to a very reliable article that WT posted from the well known CultoftheFirstAmendment blog - it was actually the girls of Blasey-Ford's school that were preying on this poor helpless boys.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

BokJock wrote:

zt1903 wrote:
What a bizarre question Why would I judge someone's faith based on a high school yearbook?

And why do you assume that Kavanaugh wrote his yearbook page, aren’t these things normally compiled and edited by others?

It is pretty clear that he was a hard partying, heavy drinking jock, that lifestyle does not generally gel with staunch Christian values.

This, of course, does not mean that he did any of the rapey stuff he is accused of.

Liking a drink in high school does not make you a sexual predator (as I am sure a lot of us on here can attest to) - this Christian abstinence angle doesn't ring true to me.

My take on it was just that he didn't get none. Seems bizarre, heck, even I got some and I was really really drunk at university, but there you go I guess.

That is more plausible

zzzz wrote:

Santa wrote:David French

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/b ... c-defense/

Unlike his accusers Kavanaugh has made 3 specific and testable claims about himself.

1. Sexual abstinence until after college
2. Never having been blackout drunk
3. Never having been to a party in the area that Ford claims the first grope took place.

If any of these can be challenged he will be in trouble.

It's a very specific rebuttal to the vague and unsubstantiated assertions made against him.

Which may be a mistake. Half the point of these excercises is to create traps for the "accused" to walk into. US Prosecutors are shameless about this sort of stuff.

Yep. On this he's either naive, arrogant or correct.

Turbogoat wrote: If the GOP wanted to cause a bit of a brain meltdown on the other side they could always nominate a female judge.

You know Donny wants to do it

shanky wrote:

zzzz wrote:

shanky wrote:

zzzz wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:
The dumbarse should have got legal advice.

Like most SC nominees, he hasn't spent a lot of time on the other side of the bench.

Big pieces of the claims against him have no supporting evidence or strong evidence against them w/out it seemimg to make any difference to the #webelieve f*ckwits - but if he is caught in just one porky, they'll absolutey kill him.


Frankly, the SC process is now broken beyond all repair. The only GOP candidates who will submitt to this in the fututre are likely to be the utterly partisan who will see it as just another part of an eternal, manichean struggle and they will get in wherever and whenever the GOP have the votes. I don't think the Dems are going to like that SC very much.

Slight over-reaction

Gorusch got in without any of this ‘he’s a rapist’ stuff.

Because there was no hope of running the clock down on him. The Senate Dems initially got behind this becuase they think the GOP may lose the Senate in the mid-tems and they want put Kav into limbo until then. But SC confirmations are an arms race and I'm pretty sure this will be the new norm. Even if you can't block, you can de-legitimise.

Are you suggesting that they would have done something similar to Gorusch if the circumstances were different?

Yup.

Correct.
Maybe stupid, too, maybe not, but we will see.

Perhaps Kavanaugh shouldn't have been such a know it all about Military Tribunals. This line of questioning is quite surprising but no doubt the Swamp creatures are running scared.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_gmOsnjrZw

Allegedly Obama has had a meeting with Trump - wonder why?

All aboard the Gitmo Express!!!

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Santa wrote:

zzzz wrote:

Santa wrote:David French

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/b ... c-defense/

Unlike his accusers Kavanaugh has made 3 specific and testable claims about himself.

1. Sexual abstinence until after college
2. Never having been blackout drunk
3. Never having been to a party in the area that Ford claims the first grope took place.

If any of these can be challenged he will be in trouble.

It's a very specific rebuttal to the vague and unsubstantiated assertions made against him.

Which may be a mistake. Half the point of these excercises is to create traps for the "accused" to walk into. US Prosecutors are shameless about this sort of stuff.

Yep. On this he's either naive, arrogant or correct.

I vote for correct. Everyone else on the thread please line up in your assigned category. Thanks.

It would be very foolish of him to have taken this option if he had a bit of gang bangage baggage. Very foolish indeed.

zzzz wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

shanky wrote:I know, that’s hilarious

Only needs one thing to be disproved and the whole thing falls apart.

The dumbarse should have got legal advice.

Like most SC nominees, he hasn't spent a lot of time on the other side of the bench.

Big pieces of the claims against him have no supporting evidence or strong evidence against them w/out it seemimg to make any difference to the #webelieve f*ckwits - but if he is caught in just one porky, they'll absolutey kill him.


Frankly, the SC process is now broken beyond all repair. The only GOP candidates who will submitt to this in the fututre are likely to be the utterly partisan who will see it as just another part of an eternal, manichean struggle and they will get in wherever and whenever the GOP have the votes. I don't think the Dems are going to like that SC very much.

The broken thing is that some police and judiciary are voted into office while yet others are selected for office by politicians. Along with the intense and close to the bone lobbying that goes, the US model of appointing the judiciary is so obviously ripe for corruption it's mind blowing that it has been retained. But then the US tends to be particularly and inexplicitly hidebound when it comes to these things.

Kav is bullshitting. Big time. Catholic/Christian schoolboys are the horniest of the lot. All its going to take is one ex girlfriend he has pissed off.

kiwinoz wrote:Perhaps Kavanaugh shouldn't have been such a know it all about Military Tribunals. This line of questioning is quite surprising but no doubt the Swamp creatures are running scared.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_gmOsnjrZw

Allegedly Obama has had a meeting with Trump - wonder why?

All aboard the Gitmo Express!!!

Are you being serious sticking with this Q Anon/ Gitmo schtick or just taking the piss?

Seneca of the Night wrote:

shanky wrote:I know, that’s hilarious

Only needs one thing to be disproved and the whole thing falls apart.

The dumbarse should have got legal advice.

He certainly seems to have let Avenatti off the hook by doing so. He’s no longer talking about gang rape, he now seems to be suggesting that Kavanaugh may have had a blowjob in High School.

Ben Carson knows what is really going on!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D-3RV-sXUg

BokJock wrote:Ben Carson knows what is really going on!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D-3RV-sXUg

Curse those Fabians.

zt1903 wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

shanky wrote:I know, that’s hilarious

Only needs one thing to be disproved and the whole thing falls apart.

The dumbarse should have got legal advice.

He certainly seems to have let Avenatti off the hook by doing so. He’s no longer talking about gang rape, he now seems to be suggesting that Kavanaugh may have had a blowjob in High School.

Luckily under the Democrat definition that is not sexual relations.

o

Santa wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

shanky wrote:I know, that’s hilarious

Only needs one thing to be disproved and the whole thing falls apart.

The dumbarse should have got legal advice.

He certainly seems to have let Avenatti off the hook by doing so. He’s no longer talking about gang rape, he now seems to be suggesting that Kavanaugh may have had a blowjob in High School.

Luckily under the Democrat definition that is not sexual relations.

True.

But to be fair Kavanaugh used the phrase sexual intercourse, which a blowjob isn’t by any definition.

zt1903 wrote: True.

But to be fair Kavanaugh used the phrase sexual intercourse, which a blowjob isn’t by any definition.

South African law describes "sexual penetration" as penetration of ANY part of the body by a sexual organ ...

Turbogoat wrote:

BokJock wrote:Ben Carson knows what is really going on!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D-3RV-sXUg

Curse those Fabians.

Nah, they’re just a front for the Queen, the Vatican, the Gettys, the Rothschilds and Colonel Sanders.

zt1903 wrote:o

Santa wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

shanky wrote:I know, that’s hilarious

Only needs one thing to be disproved and the whole thing falls apart.

The dumbarse should have got legal advice.

He certainly seems to have let Avenatti off the hook by doing so. He’s no longer talking about gang rape, he now seems to be suggesting that Kavanaugh may have had a blowjob in High School.

Luckily under the Democrat definition that is not sexual relations.

True.

But to be fair Kavanaugh used the phrase sexual intercourse, which a blowjob isn’t by any definition.

It seems to be by Wikipedia's definition;

Sexual intercourse (or coitus or copulation) is principally the insertion and thrusting of the penis, usually when erect, into the vagina for sexual pleasure, reproduction, or both.[3] This is also known as vaginal intercourse or vaginal sex.[2][4] Other forms of penetrative sexual intercourse include anal sex (penetration of the anus by the penis), oral sex (penetration of the mouth by the penis or oral penetration of the female genitalia), fingering (sexual penetration by the fingers), and penetration by use of a dildo (especially a strap-on dildo).[5][6][7]

Pretty much anything sexual seems to fall under that definition, so Kavanaugh might leave himself open to questioning about his youthful fumblings in the same sort of lurid detail that he liked to use on Bill Clinton. Which would be pretty unedifying but slightly amusing just for the karma.

Santa wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

shanky wrote:I know, that’s hilarious

Only needs one thing to be disproved and the whole thing falls apart.

The dumbarse should have got legal advice.

He certainly seems to have let Avenatti off the hook by doing so. He’s no longer talking about gang rape, he now seems to be suggesting that Kavanaugh may have had a blowjob in High School.

Luckily under the Democrat definition that is not sexual relations.

Wilson's Toffee wrote:

zt1903 wrote: True.

But to be fair Kavanaugh used the phrase sexual intercourse, which a blowjob isn’t by any definition.

South African law describes "sexual penetration" as penetration of ANY part of the body by a sexual organ ...

a.) How is that relevant to an incident that allegedly occurred in the United States? and
b.) None of the accusers have accused him of rape. The first said he attempted to forcibly take off her clothes while holding his hand over her mouth, and the second has accused him of taking out his penis near her face and she had to push him away.

Why the need to muddy the waters here? The allegations have been fairly straight forward; and while neither make the threshold for rape, in some places they would be considered sexual assault or attempted sexual assault. Personally not somebody that shoulds very virtuous and that I would like on the bench.


It's interesting that the Republicans are fighting this battle. From all accounts it McConnell didn't even want Kavanaugh, Trump did for his unique view on prosecuting a sitting president, but surely any conservative will do in the long term. They have a list of 20 candidates approved and endorsed by the Federalist Society. Why not just cut Kavanaugh loose and move to the next name on the list? It will win them big points pretending to care about this whole #metoo fad, and they can still get the seat filled before the midterms.

If the Dems win a majority they will impeach Trump and prosecute him after he has left office. Then Kavanaugh's view on the matter is moot anyway.

Two minutes into Trump's opening monologue at the UN and he is already straining credulity. The crowd are already giving him the raspberry.

I know that this is the norm when it comes to the POTUS addressing the UN, but with this guy there is just too much bs and blowing himself to stomach

Blake wrote:

Wilson's Toffee wrote:

zt1903 wrote: True.

But to be fair Kavanaugh used the phrase sexual intercourse, which a blowjob isn’t by any definition.

South African law describes "sexual penetration" as penetration of ANY part of the body by a sexual organ ...

a.) How is that relevant to an incident that allegedly occurred in the United States? and
b.) None of the accusers have accused him of rape. The first said he attempted to forcibly take off her clothes while holding his hand over her mouth, and the second has accused him of taking out his penis near her face and she had to push him away.

Why the need to muddy the waters here? The allegations have been fairly straight forward; and while neither make the threshold for rape, in some places they would be considered sexual assault or attempted sexual assault. Personally not somebody that shoulds very virtuous and that I would like on the bench.


It's interesting that the Republicans are fighting this battle. From all accounts it McConnell didn't even want Kavanaugh, Trump did for his unique view on prosecuting a sitting president, but surely any conservative will do in the long term. They have a list of 20 candidates approved and endorsed by the Federalist Society. Why not just cut Kavanaugh loose and move to the next name on the list? It will win them big points pretending to care about this whole #metoo fad, and they can still get the seat filled before the midterms.

If the Dems win a majority they will impeach Trump and prosecute him after he has left office. Then Kavanaugh's view on the matter is moot anyway.

There's the small issue that he may not have done anything wrong and then theres the fact that the evidence of wrongdoing is very, very weak indeed.

Nothing corroborated by eye winess accounts
No physical evidence
Unreliable memories: drunkenness on one hand and 35 year time gap and contradictory claims ( were there 4 people present or 2) on the other
There are statements that flat out contradict the allegations

If the Republicans give in to this at this stage they might as well give the whole game away. And their supporters won't forgive them.

The only way they can give up the Kav is if he is nailed for something.

By the way, if the Dems do go for impeachment I reckon that will be taken as an act of war by a very large section of the US electorate.

puku wrote:Two minutes into Trump's opening monologue at the UN and he is already straining credulity. The crowd are already giving him the raspberry.

I know that this is the norm when it comes to the POTUS addressing the UN, but with this guy there is just too much bs and blowing himself to stomach

Kim Jong Un would probably get a better reception. And if he did that would demonstrate once and for all what a f.ucked organisation the UN is.

puku wrote:Two minutes into Trump's opening monologue at the UN and he is already straining credulity. The crowd are already giving him the raspberry.

I know that this is the norm when it comes to the POTUS addressing the UN, but with this guy there is just too much bs and blowing himself to stomach

They literally laughed at him, did he think he was at a MAGA rally in Idaho?

Santa wrote: There's the small issue that he may not have done anything wrong and then theres the fact that the evidence of wrongdoing is very, very weak indeed.

Nothing corroborated by eye winess accounts
No physical evidence
Unreliable memories: drunkenness on one hand and 35 year time gap and contradictory claims ( were there 4 people present or 2) on the other
There are statements that flat out contradict the allegations

It's almost as if a professional investigation bureau didn't investigate the allegations (as would have been part of their duty as the checkers of backgrounds of SCOTUS nominees) due to political interference by partisan hacks.

Santa wrote:

puku wrote:Two minutes into Trump's opening monologue at the UN and he is already straining credulity. The crowd are already giving him the raspberry.

I know that this is the norm when it comes to the POTUS addressing the UN, but with this guy there is just too much bs and blowing himself to stomach

Kim Jong Un would probably get a better reception. And if he did that would demonstrate once and for all what a f.ucked organisation the UN is.

He told a blatant lie FFS. Also Trump reckons Kim is terrific!

No mention of Russia at all

So many posters who have all the facts already. I applaud you on the inside knowledge you all seem to have.
He's guilty, clearly.
Trump will be impeached, obviously.
etc.

Bearing in mind that the FBI's job is to identify that the allegations exist. It is not to investigate the veracity of the allegations unless it is within its jurisdiction (e.g. federal crime). The Senate is supposed to interrogate the veracity of the allegations, assuming that they are not before a court.

We know the allegations exist. The FBI's job here is done. Unless, of course, it is directed to do additional work not envisaged under the MOU that covers these sorts of background checks.

BokJock wrote:

puku wrote:Two minutes into Trump's opening monologue at the UN and he is already straining credulity. The crowd are already giving him the raspberry.

I know that this is the norm when it comes to the POTUS addressing the UN, but with this guy there is just too much bs and blowing himself to stomach

They literally laughed at him, did he think he was at a MAGA rally in Idaho?

When all you have is electoral success, you tend to see the world in terms of MAGA rallies in Idaho.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

BokJock wrote:

puku wrote:Two minutes into Trump's opening monologue at the UN and he is already straining credulity. The crowd are already giving him the raspberry.

I know that this is the norm when it comes to the POTUS addressing the UN, but with this guy there is just too much bs and blowing himself to stomach

They literally laughed at him, did he think he was at a MAGA rally in Idaho?

You do realise most people in most countries on the planet loathe the fat shits that purport to represent them in the UN? Why anyone would take their laughter as in line with ones own interest has me baffled. Any right thinking person would be backing a bomb to blow up the whole place and every one in it.

The contortions you lot have twisted yourself into on your loathing of Trump is ridiculous.

He told a lie but instead of cheering loudly (like a bunch of red cap wearing morons), his audience laughed in his face - he was clearly surprised.

I personally don't have strong feelings one way or the other for the people who represent me in the UN (either UK or RSA) - not sure why anyone would (I am sure you will tell me I am not paying attention).

Surely it is better to have the UN then not?!?

Santa wrote:Bearing in mind that the FBI's job is to identify that the allegations exist. It is not to investigate the veracity of the allegations unless it is within its jurisdiction (e.g. federal crime).

The background checks are part of their jurisdiction. If new info comes to light it's a purely political move to insist that they don't follow up on them prior to a confirmation.

The Senate is supposed to interrogate the veracity of the allegations, assuming that they are not before a court.

We know the allegations exist. The FBI's job here is done. Unless, of course, it is directed to do additional work not envisaged under the MOU that covers these sorts of background checks.

The Senate aren't investigators. They are by definition, political. They've already placed insane restrictions on their own attempt at investigation - Arbitrary time limits! No witnesses!

But yeah, the FBI's job is done because.... political expediency.
If the tables were turned you'd be screaming bloody murder.

BokJock wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

BokJock wrote:

puku wrote:Two minutes into Trump's opening monologue at the UN and he is already straining credulity. The crowd are already giving him the raspberry.

I know that this is the norm when it comes to the POTUS addressing the UN, but with this guy there is just too much bs and blowing himself to stomach

They literally laughed at him, did he think he was at a MAGA rally in Idaho?

You do realise most people in most countries on the planet loathe the fat shits that purport to represent them in the UN? Why anyone would take their laughter as in line with ones own interest has me baffled. Any right thinking person would be backing a bomb to blow up the whole place and every one in it.

The contortions you lot have twisted yourself into on your loathing of Trump is ridiculous.

He told a lie but instead of cheering loudly (like a bunch of red cap wearing morons), his audience laughed in his face - he was clearly surprised.

I personally don't have strong feelings one way or the other for the people who represent me in the UN (either UK or RSA) - not sure why anyone would (I am sure you will tell me I am not paying attention).

Surely it is better to have the UN then not?!?

It's a bit like his inane performance with the G8, he genuinely thought they liked him until they had to make it explicitly clear what an arse he'd made of himself.
It's also his approach to foreign policy in general. He describes how much he thinks Putin, Kim Jong Eun or Xi Jinping likes him, because he eats up their perfunctory flattery as genuine praise and isn't sharp enough read the situation.