SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion): Eight Becomes Nine

[Salodin]

I think its rich that Day thinks bringing up Aziz is some kinda GOTCHA!, as if dems would want a creep like Aziz on the court.
If I say I also dont want Aziz on the supreme court, can you try a little harder with your whataboutism? It's a little low energy today.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Dotsudoku]

I am not saying what they are accused of was equal or not on some kind of sexual assault power pyramid. Im just saying it's very telling how you nerds approach the Ellison, Franken, Clinton, Aziz accusations compared to Roy Moore or Kavanaugh. Makes it hard to take most of you seriously.

how's this: if any of those people were nominated for SCOTUS, I'd want them investigated with all haste

[Day]

how's this: if any of those people were nominated for SCOTUS, I'd want them investigated with all haste

Dude one was a president, 2 are/were sitting members of congress. Aziz is nobody really, again I didn't bring Aziz up, I just touched on it and BG's reaction to his issue because someone else brought him up.

[archibaldcrane]

Our big dumb president is finally attacking the accuser.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...473055235?s=19

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[archibaldcrane]

I also like that he thinks civilians can go to the police and "file charges" lol.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Day]

Tried to tell Fiye he had some fire tweets out there this morning

[Mertron]

i would like to file charges against all of you for making my brain hurt, to the police i go

[Dotsudoku]

Was for the most serious offender; was for someone with whom you could argue the level of offense, but in which situation we had every reason to take the allegations as truth; is for someone with whom you could argue the level of offense, but in which situation we, afaik, have no evidence to speak of

[Salodin]

Day, you realize almost no one here was old enough to vote for Bill right? And the other allegations came out after those people were already in office.

Or are you now trying to whatabout voting/appointing someone you know has a sketchy past, with people we didnt know had a sketchy past before voting for them? I cant keep up with your mental gymnastics to equate rapists with non rapists.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Kalmado]

[Tyche]

https://www.axios.com/trump-brett-ka...cdad99482.html

Well, they kept him in check for a whole 5 minutes.

[Mertron]

https://www.axios.com/trump-brett-ka...cdad99482.html

Well, they kept him in check for a whole 5 minutes.

in all fairness this is probably a world record for trump when it comes to restraint

[Tyrath]

My reaction to this thread.

Some of you have crazy patience to even try to refute the shit that comes out of Day's mouth.

[Tymon]

My shitpost was appropriated and turned into an actual argument.

I feel violated.

edit: replaced debate with argument, lets be real here

[Day]

My shitpost was appropriated and turned into an actual argument.

I feel violated.

edit: replaced debate with argument, lets be real here

Welcome, to the machine.

[Salodin]

My reaction to this thread.

Some of you have crazy patience to even try to refute the shit that comes out of Day's mouth.

I cant fucking quit him q_q

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

It's almost like it's sometimes hard to leave an abusive relationship, even if your partner is [s]fucking other women[/s] trolling incessantly.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[shukudai]

You know what would fix almost all of this? Allowing an investigation. To bad only the side that makes you feel icky is calling for that

I presume you mean the Democrats are the side that wants to allow an investigation, since they're the ones that make me feel icky. Let's see where we disagree?

- Republicans offered her a hearing. They offered to have it be either public, or private. They offered to fly people to her home, so it can be done there. Makes me think they want to hear what she has to say.
- There's a disagreement over having the FBI investigate. On one hand, the alleged crime (I say alleged because there's an accusation and a denial, so I'm using the term alleged crime) would it not be a state matter? Or on the other hand, since Supreme Court nominees are vetted/investigated by the FBI, would this not fall under FBI jurisdiction? I am however certain both the left and right have investigators, and if he's been vetted already, I believe, 6 separate times as he rose up the ranks, was that not thoroughly done? If the FBI didn't find anything previously, what are they going to find now?
- What is anyone going to be able to find from a 36 year old crime? This is possibly an impossible task. There was a woman who posted on Facebook that she heard about it at the time, it was talked about in school during the school year, when it happened, but it supposedly happened during summer. I've seen this in a couple of places, and I can buy "It happened during summer, and was talked about during the next school year.", and I can also buy that it's fabricated, someone who just wants to stand up in support. I don't know. Could the FBI find something? Possibly, without an investigation, we don't know. Is it remotely likely that they're going to find anything factual or provable from 36 years ago? Hyper doubtful.
- You can't take politics out of this. Any delay in nominating him is a benefit to the Democrats, and they'll fight tooth, claw and nail to stop it regardless of veracity.

[kuronosan]

They don't need to have if all it takes is an accusation.

"You fucking moron" nice debate skills

"Like, if gay people are allowed to marry look forward to people marrying goats" is literally what are you doing here.

[shukudai]

Wait, I stopped reading after "why she waited until x years ago to tell her psychiatrist".

Are you really asking that?

Of course I'm really asking that, I'm shocked you can't see why I'm asking that. I believe that 95% of allegations end up being true, and 5% end up being false. The stakes here are rather gigantic, when we're talking about a Supreme Court nomination. I presume your take is "I can't believe you're asking that. It was a horrible experience, she had to deal with it her whole life, fear of being victim blamed. Internalized shame and humiliation, wrecking her career and her life and likely that of her family, and culture in general, why on earth would she tell anyone, ever?"

That can be true, people can and do behave in that way. People also do fucked up, crazy things and lie, lies get out of control, make up shit and so on. You're essentially asking how I decide who to believe? The answer is, I don't know, but at the very least I can admit that when the stakes are a Supreme Court nomination, and we're in the political arena, there absolutely has to be at the very least a small chance that shockingly, someone may deceive or lie and that it's also well within the realm of possibility. Not questioning anything, at all and just believe every accuser, ever, because they're a woman just doesn't cut it. Like I said, I think 95% of allegations end up being true, so there's strong cause to believe, but there's still 5% that isn't. This isn't emotional, this is logical: How do you separate the 5% from the 95%? You ask questions, like "why did she wait that long?" Could be trauma/fucked up/bad shit, could be it's false, and I've seen so much fake bullshit from both sides I don't even begin to know how to get at any truth.