Yes, I'm guilty of sexual misconduct. Back in the days of CWG there were some wild ass parties. Drinking, crack brownies, porn, passed out Clowns face down in their pies, butts up in air, and a horny dog (actually couple of dogs in fact) who may or may not have taken advantage of some of those Clown arses.

Damn glad that was before cell phones had cameras...I think...dunno...fuzzy memory.

Big Dog CWG
Clowns wtih Guns
Clown for Life
Former Ringmaster (cause he had ring worms)

You could fit right in on the senate. It's a giant circus at this point.

Double post

You'll be fine as long as you're a Democrat.

i always remembered how i got to a party did not always leave with the same person but knew where i was and where i had been to black out this much she is not credible

FTFY! Because that's what is currently happening.

Nah. His past would get dug up and since what he did is true he would get burned. Unlike what is happening now.

The evidence isn't just lacklustre, it's non existent. She hasn't even provided the lowest burden of proof required, just an accusation. An accusation wouldn't be enough to find you guilty in the 1979 Ba'ath purge. Its ironic that that the same Democrats that are choosing someone for the highest court in the US do not even understand due process.

you mean like an investigation? maybe by the fbi?

American Bar Association urges Kavanaugh vote be delayed until after an FBI investigation
http://www.abajournal.com

And what would they investigate that hasn't already been said?

How about this, stop the midterm elections, and pay of the senate until they have voted on a nomination.for the scotus.

Bet dems would change their tune.

The xfiles division?

Also why would the FBI investigate this again? Not even their jurisdiction or does the FBI just sound scarier than some local police deskjockey that wouldn't even bother putting forward the resources to investigate a nothingburger case because there is no evidence at all to draw from? Again, ironic that the so called overseers of the FBI don't even understand their jurisdiction

Americans really love French creations. The statue of liberty, and the circus

neither side wants it investigated (they got their own reasons) so won't happen.

For some reason I have a feeling that sinistril likes to invite men over to play devil's triangles with him and his wife. You know the drinking game. The one that is like quarters, yeah. You ever had a boof, sin and hawk? I bet you have. Maybe we can all be friends, we will change our signatures to sinistril alumnus. YOU KNOW AFTER WE ALL RUN A TRAIN ON YOU! This isn't liberal tears you fluffing morons, it's a supreme court justice. No one is naive enough to believe the bullfluff on display.

I am just not sure how fluffing naive/complicit in treason/ignorant people who still support the GOP must be. Beyond any politics I don't want a fluffing lying piece of fluff to be a supreme court justice, and I would think that would go beyond politics and just be common sense.

Hi syko!

And no. This is liberal tears. This is the liberals way of throwing a fing tantrum when they havent got their way. Expect more allegations to come out for any republican that runs for any type of govt position as this is the democrats new tactic. Play the sexist, racism, xenophobic, trans-phobic, homophobic card on the opposing candidate and let peoples emotions take over.

The liberal party pushes themselves as the party of acceptance. What a fluffing joke.

Damn us naive people who are looking at the body of evidence or lack there of and deeming it insufficient. Belief is a funny word that people use when something can't stand on its own merit. In this case, to not be naive, according to you, you just have to trust that no woman has lied, ever because the entirety of her evidence is based on her word. Let's overlook the fact that the only people that are backing her word are people she told decades after it happened.

I suggest, politics watcher, that your gullible ass changes his name back to Maury watcher

remember that time the senate ignored the constitution and refused to move forward with Obama's SC nominee for almost a year?

the GOP lost all credibility to complain about "tactics" the democrats used after that.

also, the dem's were fine with Trump's previous nominee last year. this is what you get when you nominate a flawed candidate and try to ram it through.

american politics are fluff across the board, but the last few years of GOP behaviour have taken it to a new level

I hope the nation gets its political sanity back at some point.

They didn't ignore the Constitution in the Garland nomination, though. Nor were they fine with the Gorsuch nomination. The party system is broken, to be honest. A better political system might be for politicians to be locked in a box (or at least big brother type houses for them and their staff)) for their entire term and presented with relevant arguments anonymously before voting.

Trapped in a state of prisoners dillema they'll lose their ability to trade votes, collude, and stall and will be forced to vote honestly based on the arguments presented. Power hungry individuals will be deterred by the loss of perks and grandstanding will be eliminated. People that are actually concerned with policy and sacrifice will be the only ones remaining (probably no current politicians, at least in the states) and youll end up with a better product.

That, or allow AI to make all relevant governmental decisions and admit that our soon-to-be robot overlords will be wiser and more pragmatic then a bunch of rich old demagogues on the brink of being in a complete state of psychosis will ever be.

Ok ok ok. Holllllld up.

Didnt Jeff Flake already bail out the Republicans here? I know this guy looks like a blubbering ass. Also I know if I were accused of rape I wouldn't cry, I'd probably get mad af but I wouldn't start sobbing like a baby. That made it look, after a dozen public sexual misconduct trials recently where the guy is accurately a rapist and cries a lot, like he's guilty of that. But he wasn't on trial.

This was a job interview. Plain and simple. If you walk into a job interview and someone asks you about your drinking habits and you fire back with "what are your drinking habits!?", theres a decided chance you dont get that job. Especially when people are naturally against you for political reasons, right? If he had a cooler demeanor, a more logical instead of emotional debate, and more respect for his employers, he'd be a more solid candidate for the position. Since he is not those things, he bemones undesirable. And with that he should be expected to be put through the ringer by the other side with the support of moderates. Because at the very least, theres someone more desirable out there and I think we all know that.

All that said, Jeff Flake (keep an eye on him. He would win my vote against Joe Biden if he were to primary trump and win, which is a very real possibility. As a moderate I do prefer him to a pile of liberals) said he would vote to confirm Kavanaugh pending a very customary FBI investigation. The vote has been delayed one week for the FBI, again this is customary, to find out if he is capable of his duties. A bipartisan investigation suggested by a Republican will get to the bottom of this thing here. And I think we all agree that we dont want a rapist deciding on women's rights. Also none of us were there. I'm sure people will do their jobs and if there is evidence that he did these things I'm sure that will get told. If not I'm sure that he gets confirmed and all will be fine. It was strange that the Republicans tried initially to jump past the customary investigation to a vote, and I'm glad the Republicans also stopped that from happening. If he's found not a rapist, I still dont want him for reasons stated above, but I'm not unsure about him being a rapist and can at least sleep on it.

the new season or something of the supreme court starts on monday and requires judges to be confirmed before hand to be eligible for maybe 3 or 6 months and includes a case which could theoretically allow trump to pardon people then prevent seperate state trials, its about removing state/federal exemption to double jeopardy

i dont think the case is actually likely to do that but its possible

then theres whatever normal supreme court stuff is going on which a lot of people consider important

thats why everyones obsessed over the timeline stuff

You'd think the midterms favor the GOP tho when looking who's up for senator. Unless this is a huge corruption scandal where this guy's just getting shoved in there so our fascist government can undermine justice in the collusion trial, which to me sounds entirely like a conspiracy theory, there should be no problem with taking a couple weeks to find out whether he is not a rapist. Seems very logical.

on the supreme court constitution thing, i think its a senate procedures thing instead

i dont know what actually started it but under obama there were a lot of unfilled judge ships

and there was either talk about them being delayed until republicans were in power or just some general too much big government thing

i think its actually got worse under trump but people say its because the transition was incompetent and focused on other things, such as gorsuch at supreme court and cabinet

so the democrats changed senate rules to ban filibuster and make it a 51-49 vote on all judicial appointments except supreme court instead of i think 61-39

and the republicans blocked garland for maybe 8 months

then the republicans removed the same rules as the democrats did but for the supreme court so now its only the 11-10 committee vote with 11 reps and 10 dems and the 51-49 senate vote, with i think 51 reps or including 1 independant whos effectively a rep maybe, but the vp can break ties so theyd need 2 votes to switch to lose

gorsuch went through after the democrats filibustered and republicans changed the rules to remove fillibusters, but i dont think the process outside that was as acrimonious, more about garland than gorsuch perhaps

previously with needing 60 or 61 votes candidates had to be less controversial and usually more moderate

i think people said gorsuch was the sort of candidate the democrats and left would prefer if they didnt get to pick, but kavanaugh isnt the same sort of candidate

then theres political considerations related to the theatre spectacle and grandstanding involved

republicans tend to care a lot about supreme court, so making it seem to be or having it under attack from democrats is generally good for them helping turnout at midterms

but if the attack is for a 'good enough' reason it can do things like happened after a similar issue with clarence thomas in about '91/92

when a lot of women and democrats won office

a lot of people say there is going to be two elections in two different demographic areas so its possible both sides could be right

and with the way the senate seats up for election and various incumbency issues go its possible it will help democrats win the house and republicans retain the senate

and both sides will have views on what helps and hurts them and how close an investigation to the midterms gets, 37 days now, and i assume early voting opens at one month out

Eh. I take that with a grain of salt. Politics these days is a whole lot of grandstanding. Drag em thru the mud. Whatever makes the soap opera better. You don't elect the host of a reality TV show if you don't want a reality TV show in DC. Both sides are pretty hilariously over the top these days.

But I do think the outcome of the investigation will seriously hurt the credibility of one party in middle America. Makes it all the more intriguing to me to have a thorough investigation so one side can just be made an ass of in a key moment.

The whole thing is playing out famously for the Republicans, barring that he's not actually a rapist.

im not convinced any scandal is big enough to matter any longer

we used to say there was a 24 hour political news cycle, in some ways its even shorter than that now

trump has had something like 17-23 and then there is cosby and weinstein with much higher numbers

on the democrat side weiner came back for more at least a few times, and even led to more drama because his wife had emails to and from hillary on his laptop, hell you can even add trump to the democrat pile for whatever he did in the 10 years he was a registered democrat for internet lulz

kavanaugh almost looks restrained with his 3-5

well have to wait until trumps gone to see if other politicians are treated the same or differently

If Trump is just going to be unapologetically Trump, you have to expect everyone to feed into the soap opera from a purely psychological standpoint. The grey area between what is and what is not acceptable behavior for the leaders of the nation has been at the very least, pushed recently. That's not one man. That's a trend. Professionalism is a dying thing in those buildings.

w bush was untouchable for a while after he left office but has been repatriated now

not sure how much of that is him and how much is just by comparison to trump though

im assuming trump will be defended until he leaves then become a pariah and by association scandals will return to being scandals then

cant see trumps legacy regaining ground unless he manages something like lincoln with slavery nixon with china or reagan bankrupting the ussr that both sides can get behind now

and in theory he could pull something off with iran/northkorea/china/russia

But in that way, you're very correct. It'd be interesting to see a president now with a high level of class, respect and intellect to see if we are indeed too far gone or if we can go back to governing for the people.

I really hope Trump gets primaried. I'm very sick of the charade. I'm ready to elect a grand master of chess or some fluffing thing regardless of party. I wanna see some boring ass intelligent people having a proactive debate instead of a bunch of special Olympics pro wrestlers hurling insults around.

when you pick a chess gm do/dont pick this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7a2wGaez1g

he actually is a chess gm btw

Part of me feels like it's the times though. This sort of thing doesn't even have shock value it is so common. People get the popcorn out and eat fluff like this up and 80 years ago they'd be frazzled over it. Idk.

Professionalism dying is probably only a good thing for me because it's not my strongest trait Haha

Wait wait so sinistril is saying this is only a problem if you are a republican. Yet Al Franken is democrat and was forced to resign right away when a picture leaked(of him not touching a woman) and a journalist told she had gotten an unwanted kiss. He was defended by no one, not even himself.
Roy Moore was defended by all of the republican party after doing that and much worse to dozens of CHILDREN.

The problem exists ofc on both sides but one side most certainly take it more serious than the other.

I can get behind someone saying that the relevance of what happened 3-4 decades ago in some teenager party may not be relevant for a job interview. It's more if this was repeated multiple times and still is that it is a problem. But he makes it a problem if he lies about it under oath, which he very well may be.

Also this whole debate about what is constitutional or not is completely irrellevant. It is happening, that means your framework allows it. If you find anything of what is happening to be unsavory you can go ahead and update the framework (the constitution) like ohh I dont know maybe every other civilized nation has since your document was written in a world that does not exist anymore. You americans and your constitution have the same issues as fundamentalist muslims have about their green book and their hadiths; your framework has to change with the world and you refuse to do that; instead you squabble over the true meaning of some sentenses written centuries ago (by intelligent and well-minded people for certain).

Voting on a Tuesday is as stupid in this world we have today, and maybe even more harmful, as is marrying a 9-yo or stoning to death a woman for having sex before marriage.
Those might have all been very reasonable in the times, ofc.

Ohh and yes I know all about constitutional amendments, they have been done and thats usually a great thing. But theres opposition to even suggesting amendments now.

I said nothing about the rape accusations. I said he is a liar and a piece of fluff. These aren't theories.
Proof was broadcast live and unedited, from the source directly. He lied about or deflected nearly everything. He put on some big fake show yelling about and acting like a psycho. This was a job interview. He failed.

I have two words for you, just two words: Keith Ellison.

Yeah, they take allegations of abuse so seriously. It is the best contemporary example because it's been going on longer than this Kavanaugh thing AND he's running for an AG electon, which he'll almost certainly win. Hell, even 80% of Democrat voters in the state he's running for AG in don't believe her yet she's provided more proof than Kavanaugh's accuser. #MeToo

Not saying he did it or didn't do it but the allegations against him are far more serious with a medical record, and yet the amount of coverage it's gotten is enough that you believe Democrats take these things more seriously. Because what? Al Franken and Roy Moore? Give me a fluffing break. Democrats, like Republicans, care about what is politically beneficial to them and nothing more.

The difference is that Republicans are more likely to get their feet held to the fire and that's why I said you'll be fine as a Democrat. There are a ton of historical reasons for me to say that, and they go far beyond a case last year where Franken was obliged to step down because he had spent months attacking Roy Moore, a guy that couldn't even win an election in an extremely red state; a guy that, according to you was vehemently defended by the Republican party even despite the fact that many of them publicly stated that he needs to drop out of the race .

Think what you want, anyways.