Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

End of #metoo

2456717

Comments

  • Posts: 17,381 Dakota Small Minibus


    It really says something about how society is unfolding when you know exactly what any of the prominent posters will think and believe about cases like this. I don't have to post anything for some people on here to know exactly what I think about this case.

    Stop pretending you care about the details of the case. You don't. All you're doing is looking at the case and matching it to your views.


    I will give my thoughts for the people who don't know me. This is a political farce and it should be settled out of the public eye in a courtroom if required. Anyone who says something like #ibelieveher is dangerously stupid, like all those who did it for the Belfast case. Anyone who thinks this social justice is remotely ok is dangerously stupid.

    Innocence before guilt and if you think otherwise, you are a piece of shlt.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 197 ✭✭Dick Swiveller


    A lot of democrats in America are using it to suggest because he got emotional it proves he's far too unfit/emotionally unstable to get onto the court.

    Of course they are. It's all politics. The Democrats, from the beginning, said they were going to oppose his nomination with every fibre of their being.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭SharpshooterTom


    batgoat wrote: »
    He also incorporated an elaborate Clinton conspiracy into it. He didn't behave remotely professionally. This included lying about the meaning of certain things he wrote, Devil's Triangle being switched into a drinking game for example cause that gives him a better image. He was under oath...

    He's been accused of attempted rape and likely has heard nothing but an onslaught of negative press which threatens to ruin his entire career and his name, what do you expect him to do?

    Also, saying he's not fit for the court, well he's been a judge for a couple of decades at least now, and he's just another typical conservative judge, you might not agree with him, but he seems competent and his record at lower court levels show this to be the case, he's not some rookie the way Trump is as a "politician".

    Oh btw, I actually believe Dr Ford and think there's a chance he did do it, its just that there's a reasonable chance he doesn't probably remember it given how intoxicated he was.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,189 ✭✭✭Malayalam


    I saw him struggle to remain composed, I saw no hysteria. This person has been accused of molestation, facilitating gang rape and suggestions of paedophilia have been thrown into the mix for good measure. His family have been vilified and received death threats. He was attempting to defend himself not only before the senate but also knowing a huge national and international audience would witness him trying to defend himself against accusations that are as low as one can be accused of. I didn't begrudge him his emotions. It's of zero consequence to me who is appointed, I'm only going by what I saw in that testimony.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,438 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Stoolcup wrote: »
    What do you mean agree with me?

    Yes, some idiots would call her a hysterical moron, but not me. You're doing exactly what you're accusing others of doing.

    :confused: I never said you would call her that.
    I said people would call her that and clearly you agree with me on that too,


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 197 ✭✭Dick Swiveller


    Cabaal wrote: »
    :confused: I never said you would call her that.
    I said people would call her that and clearly you agree with me on that too,

    Oh right. Yes, I agree people would say that and that is wrong. Sorry, I thought you were criticizing Kavanaugh for getting emotional.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭leggo


    It really says something about how society is unfolding when you know exactly what any of the prominent posters will think and believe about cases like this. I don't have to post anything for some people on here to know exactly what I think about this case.

    Stop pretending you care about the details of the case. You don't. All you're doing is looking at the case and matching it to your views.


    I will give my thoughts for the people who don't know me. This is a political farce and it should be settled out of the public eye in a courtroom if required. Anyone who says something like #ibelieveher is dangerously stupid, like all those who did it for the Belfast case. Anyone who thinks this social justice is remotely ok is dangerously stupid.

    Innocence before guilt and if you think otherwise, you are a piece of shlt.

    Ridiculous post. Of course people are allowed have an opinion of an issue where the arguments are being unveiled before our eyes, it'd be weirder not to given the entire process is being held in public for that exact reason. Same reason they do public debates ahead of elections. Some people get so weird and touchy about sexual cases and start spewing crap like "You're not allowed think things or you're stupid!! If you didn't SEE the sexual assault how do you know?!"

    I wasn't with OJ Simpson the night his wife got murdered, but I have thoughts about that too, as does everyone and their mother. You probably do too. The only difference with that and this is there's a sexual assault component here and that's making you weird and say things that just aren't true.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,838 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    #mebollix


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 197 ✭✭Dick Swiveller


    leggo wrote: »
    Ridiculous post. Of course people are allowed have an opinion of an issue where the arguments are being unveiled before our eyes, it'd be weirder not to given the entire process is being held in public for that exact reason. Some people get so weird and touchy about sexual cases and start spewing crap like "You're not allowed think things or you're stupid!! If you didn't SEE the sexual assault how do you know?!"

    I wasn't with OJ Simpson the night his wife got murdered, but I have thoughts about that too, as does everyone and their mother. You probably do too. The only difference with that and this is there's a sexual assault component here and that's making you weird and say things that just aren't true.

    You can have your own private thoughts on the matter but when #ibelieveher starts trending on twatter, that's dangerous.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,091 ✭✭✭backspin.


    For those who say.. #ibelieveher .. where is the logical end point of that. If that's the new standard will we even need the courts to adjudicate anymore or are we to just go straight to sentencings, sackings etc. without any investigation.

    #roxannepallet #ibelieveher .. ??


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    A lot of democrats in America are using it to suggest because he got emotional it proves he's far too unfit/emotionally unstable to get onto the court.

    His very partisan rant made him unfit for the role. I don't know who to believe but when a potential supreme judge goes on party political speech about Trump then it makes a mockery out of separation of executive and judicial system.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,438 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    One or 2 people may... but you're being disingenuous and your posts suggests it's a widespread thing.

    Are you typing that with a straight face?

    you honestly think only 1 or 2 people in all of the media, internet etc would refer to her as hysterical if she cried as much as he did?

    [EDIT]Clearly you know your claim to be disingenuous because I see you've since deleted the post :pac:

    Stoolcup wrote: »
    Oh right. Yes, I agree people would say that and that is wrong. Sorry, I thought you were criticizing Kavanaugh for getting emotional.

    Nah, just making a comparison to if it was a women crying and the types of comments they'd likely get.

    Regardless of if he is innocent or guilty he'd going to be upset, I wouldn't be critical of him over that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,058 ✭✭✭Mookie Blaylock


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Are you typing that with a straight face?

    you honestly think only 1 or 2 people in all of the media, internet etc would refer to her as hysterical if she cried as much as he did?

    [EDIT]Clearly you know your claim to be disingenuous because I see you've since deleted the post :pac:




    Nah, just making a comparison to if it was a women crying and the types of comments they'd likely get.

    Regardless of if he is innocent or guilty he'd going to be upset, I wouldn't be critical of him over that.

    Deleted it because I no longer believe your post was worth the time or effort to reply...


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,287 ✭✭✭givyjoe


    Cabaal wrote: »
    That was why he cried and went on about his child praying etc, it was to do just that.
    If she cried as much as him they'd be people claiming she was hysterical.

    Some people WERE claiming he was hysterical. Alyssa Milano for one. She was behind him taking snaps on her mobile. She also implied his hysterics made him less credible.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,168 ✭✭✭Ursus Horribilis


    It's not the end of #metoo. It is showing the world, yet again, what a seething, corrupt cesspit the American political system is. It's yet another low.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus




  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,438 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    givyjoe wrote: »
    Some people WERE claiming he was hysterical. Alyssa Milano for one. She was behind him taking snaps on her mobile. She also implied his hysterics made him less credible.

    So?
    As I've said if it was a women crying that much they'd be claiming she was hysterical too.

    As for her taking snaps on her mobile, unless its illegal to do so I'm not seeing the relevance here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    Malayalam wrote: »
    I saw him struggle to remain composed, I saw no hysteria. This person has been accused of molestation, facilitating gang rape and suggestions of paedophilia have been thrown into the mix for good measure. His family have been vilified and received death threats. He was attempting to defend himself not only before the senate but also knowing a huge national and international audience would witness him trying to defend himself against accusations that are as low as one can be accused of. I didn't begrudge him his emotions. It's of zero consequence to me who is appointed, I'm only going by what I saw in that testimony.


    Eh, same goes for Ms. Ford. Her life has also been turned upside down and for what? So she can lie under oath about an alleged sexual assault in her teens? What benefit is she getting from making these accusations?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,287 ✭✭✭givyjoe


    leggo wrote: »
    Ridiculous post. Of course people are allowed have an opinion of an issue where the arguments are being unveiled before our eyes, it'd be weirder not to given the entire process is being held in public for that exact reason. Same reason they do public debates ahead of elections. Some people get so weird and touchy about sexual cases and start spewing crap like "You're not allowed think things or you're stupid!! If you didn't SEE the sexual assault how do you know?!"

    I wasn't with OJ Simpson the night his wife got murdered, but I have thoughts about that too, as does everyone and their mother. You probably do too. The only difference with that and this is there's a sexual assault component here and that's making you weird and say things that just aren't true.

    This oj nonsense again. They real difference there is.. there was OVERWHELMING evidence of his guilt.

    This is literally he said, she said.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    Stoolcup wrote: »
    You can have your own private thoughts on the matter but when #ibelieveher starts trending on twatter, that's dangerous.

    While there was no twitter in 1991, it was pretty clear that most believed Anita Hill at the time and it directly affected senate elections the following year. So this isn't really new, the intent of the GOP was for the hearing to be a show, they didn't ever intend for the allegations to face an investigation. It backfired on them and the likes #ibelieveher probably substantially impacted it to the point where now an investigation is actually occurring.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭SharpshooterTom


    meeeeh wrote: »
    His very partisan rant made him unfit for the role. I don't know who to believe but when a potential supreme judge goes on party political speech about Trump then it makes a mockery out of separation of executive and judicial system.

    The whole exercise has been completely partisan. Chuck Schumer said just as Brett Kavanaugh was announced as the nominee he would oppose him with every fibre in his body. :confused:

    Its not normal for Supreme Court nominee's to be passed with a slim majority. Most of the time they're passed with 60 or 70 senate votes with huge bipartisan majorities.

    Neil Gorsuch, despite having nothing bad about his character, barely squeaked past with only 54 votes and the GOP had to actually remove the 60 vote threshold filibuster in order to get him confirmed given the overwhelming opposition by democrats.

    Now a lot of this is due to Republicans pathetic obstruction to Merrick Garland and democrats justifiably wanting revenge, but he's not wrong to point out that a lot of opposition against him is cynically partisan.


  • Posts: 17,381 Dakota Small Minibus


    leggo wrote: »
    Ridiculous post. Of course people are allowed have an opinion of an issue where the arguments are being unveiled before our eyes, it'd be weirder not to given the entire process is being held in public for that exact reason. Same reason they do public debates ahead of elections. Some people get so weird and touchy about sexual cases and start spewing crap like "You're not allowed think things or you're stupid!! If you didn't SEE the sexual assault how do you know?!"

    I wasn't with OJ Simpson the night his wife got murdered, but I have thoughts about that too, as does everyone and their mother. You probably do too. The only difference with that and this is there's a sexual assault component here and that's making you weird and say things that just aren't true.

    ?

    I've struggled for a few minutes now to think of a reply to this. Pointless.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Eh, same goes for Ms. Ford. Her life has also been turned upside down and for what? So she can lie under oath about an alleged sexual assault in her teens? What benefit is she getting from making these accusations?
    the suggestion is that this is purely political ie Ms Ford does not benefit personally but it's a win for the democratic party.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    givyjoe wrote: »
    This oj nonsense again. They real difference there is.. there was OVERWHELMING evidence of his guilt.

    This is literally he said, she said.


    Most of the time, that's all you've got to go on in sexual assault cases, no?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    I didn’t watch this - American politics is a clown show - but whatever outrage is there is partisan, after all Bill Clinton is loved by the democrats. Of course the outrage over Clinton was also party driven.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 197 ✭✭Dick Swiveller


    Most of the time, that's all you've got to go on in sexual assault cases, no?

    Yes, but we shouldn't believe one or the other. Asking questions like "what has she got to loose" is silly. People make stuff up all the time, often for inexplicable reasons. Let the Courts do their job. We are not all legal experts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Most of the time, that's all you've got to go on in sexual assault cases, no?
    yes but sexual assault cases usually get thrashed out in a court with a judge and jury


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,189 ✭✭✭Malayalam


    Eh, same goes for Ms. Ford. Her life has also been turned upside down and for what? So she can lie under oath about an alleged sexual assault in her teens? What benefit is she getting from making these accusations?

    So far 1 million bucks in a go fund me account.

    I said clearly that I have not decided who I believe. Anyone can lie under oath.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,287 ✭✭✭givyjoe


    Most of the time, that's all you've got to go on in sexual assault cases, no?

    And?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    the suggestion is that this is purely political ie Ms Ford does not benefit personally but it's a win for the democratic party.


    Ah, I see. She's decided to turn her previously quiet, happy, successful life upside down just as a 'f*ck you' to the Democrats. Hmmm. She strikes me as the vengeful sort alright.



    I wonder did the Republicans feel the same way when they attempted to impeach Bill Clinton over a consensual sexual encounter with his intern? He was just the president, though, not a judge. Did Linsey Graham feel apoplectic over that too?


Advertisement