Donald Trump

[SWP's back]

What's missing from your thoughts here is the wider political context. This wasn't just a Job interview. It was a deliberately delayed job interview focusing on a single accusation whose timing was calculated to delay the process such that the candidate wasn't hired before the upcoming elections where the Dems think they can take control of the upper house and block the nomination.

Didnt the Reps do that for two whole years under Obama?

Pretty sure I didn’t see you moan then.

 

[Damocles]

Good one. You not liking semantics pull the other one.
Also I note again with interest that you haven't actually answered my original point.

That's mainly because I was answering an article refuted the central claim of mine.

Your whole tone has been one of defending BK and denigrating the multiple accusers.

People talk about the "tone" of an argument once they have given up attempting to find holes within its content.

I think, if have read your posts correctly, that you are against the idea that BK could be subjected to an unfair witch hunt but that does not really seem to illustrate itself as a two way street.

Because if you have come forward at a late stage of an internationally important confirmation case, after 32 years since the alleged assault, and your testimony isn't corroborated by the people who you said will corroborate it, it's missing quite a few details, and friends of yours have claimed that you've misled people on details of your life afterwards then you lose the sympathy of a witch hunt.

You can't streak onto a football pitch at Wembley then shout at people for looking at you naked.

Obfuscation froma potential lifetime supreme court judge. Yes, I know right to privacy. Still not good though. Incidentally for purposes of accuracy I think you have put "My verdict" just in case anyone is confused. As I say I am confused as to which point you have been making. It certainly does not come across as parity for all.

That specific point is that this idea that BK has been "demonstrably caught lying" is absolutely false. My overall point is that this is a total witch hunt and the moment BK is confirmed into the seat, Ford will be jettisoned by the ever so caring public/Democrats who will move onto the next thing about why Trump is actually totally an evil and corrupt fascist leader. By page 3000, we won't have heard Ford's name come up in several hundred pages. This is a party issue in the public as well as the politics and people are falsely masquerading as this being able how an established and respected legal scholar is actually a rape fiend.

You see if people just said "I want to stop BK because I don't want a conservative on the bench and don't want to help Trump because I'm a Democrat" then that's pretty crap as a reason but at least you can respect that. This whole thing reminds me an awful lot of anti-Semitism in that nobody would ever come out until the very last minute and say "gas the Jews" but instead used to attack them as "holding too much power" or "out of touch" or "predators against the people". It's bullshit. Either be up front with hatred or fuck off with it but don't sit behind weasle words about how much a 32 year old completely unfalsifiable sexual assault that nobody is willing to back up is REALLY the issue with it

 

[SWP's back]

So then every nominee gets lies made up about them, so everyone votes purely on party lines

And if they aren’t lies and he’s a rapist?

 

[Damocles]

And if they aren’t lies and he’s a rapist?

Then the investigation finds it and bangs him up

 

[SWP's back]

Trump doing what Trump does - talking shit.

Free speech though @Damocles ?

For the POTUS to lie to a rally about the testimony of an alleged rape victim.

 

[SWP's back]

Then the investigation finds it and bangs him up

Which we both know is more than likely impossible 30 years after the event as there’s no physical evidence.

 

[Damocles]

Free speech though @Damocles ?

For the POTUS to lie to a rally about the testimony of an alleged rape victim.

Yes, free speech lets him say whatever he wants not whatever you find palatable. That is the nature of free speech.

 

[Damocles]

Which we both know is more than likely impossible 30 years after the event as there’s no physical evidence.

Of course.

Now why is an impossible to prove allegation suddenly appearing right as BK is getting nominated for the Supreme Court?

To serve the rule of law? Do me a favour.

 

[SWP's back]

Yes, free speech lets him say whatever he wants not whatever you find palatable. That is the nature of free speech.

Why were you tell me on pm the other day how much you enjoy interfering with small farm animals?

 

[Damocles]

Why were you tell me on pm the other day how much you enjoy interfering with small farm animals?

Don't refer to your missus like that