Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:or maybe he just didn't feel like getting yelled at by random lunatics while cameras were rolling?

McParadigm wrote:

McParadigm wrote:This belongs in the midterms thread, but it is relevant here.

This is one of several polls out today that were taken in the period just before a second woman came forward. Both show a two point widening, and almost all of the change is on the part of married white women, who have long been the only subgroup of women that are reliably conservative. Now, split almost evenly between the two parties.

Meanwhile, the RNCC is cutting funds to a half dozen House races it now believes are lost, and transitioning those funds to other races that it didn’t previously expect to be competitive.

If they picked this interviewer because of her slut shame tactics, they...chose poorly.

See also:

--- wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

96583UP wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:This is your daily reminder that there isn't a shred of proof to back up any of these claims,

sworn testimony from the accuser, Brett's calendar and yearbook which support the claim that he was a blackout party drunk (something he lied to when asked under oath initially) and that he engaged in threesomes ('devil's triangle') constitute more than a 'shred'

No that very much constitutes a "shred", and that's being charitable.

Let's not forget that he was also alive at the time the crime allegedly occurred, so that's some more proof right there.

Although we're apparently not even sure about the when.

Literally all of the persons she claims were there - this number has gone from three to four to five to four - deny her account of the events (her then-friend providing a sworn statement attesting to both not being at this party and having never met Kavanaugh). Her story includes exactly zero falsifiable elements, and the only meaningful detail she can recall (Place? Nope. Date? Nope. How she got to and from the home? Nope.) is that Kavanaugh was the perpetrator. If even one potentially falsifiable element lined up - let alone were offered - it would go a long way in establishing some evidentiary credibility. But...there just isn't any.

Also, the investigation will be dutifully conducted by the same agency that failed six different times to uncover exactly these events.

It's always possible that I've missed - or misrepresented - something factual, which I'm sure someone will kindly point out.

Anders wrote:

B wrote:

Anders wrote:Politically I disagree with Kavanaugh on most key issues. Nevertheless, I worry about how a claim that he did something decades ago, as a 17 year old, suddenly pops up for the first time, as he is trying to get a position in The Supreme Court. It seems politically motivated, and therefore rings false in my ears.

I might agree with you if his answers were, "I was a kid who drank a lot and occasionally got into trouble. I don't remember this happening. I certainly don't think I was the type of person who would do this, but if I'm wrong, I'm very sorry for any trauma I've caused this woman, but I am a very different person today."

... and not, "You fuckers are part of a cabal trying to destroy me and ruin my family. Democrats can go to hell, I'm going to eat you all!"

Sure, if he was a Hollywood actor or rock star, or even a regular guy, this would a good answer. However, in this specific case, he would probably be crucified if he answered what you wrote. I’m no Republican, but I can understand why he went on the war path.

bune wrote:That is such a weird picture, like there's a filter or something going on.

McParadigm wrote:My god she’s been ate

B wrote:

McParadigm wrote:My god she’s been ate

Dirty Brett.

McParadigm wrote:Yeah, this guy is gonna do fine under investigation.

BurtReynolds wrote:

bune wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Yeah, this guy is gonna do fine under investigation.

And it's been deleted. Weird.

dimejinky99 wrote:THis is well worth a minute of your time