• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Julie Swetnick's MSNBC Interview Was a Unmitigated Disaster

Big Ed said:
This is one allegation that is extremely difficult to believe - why would any girl/woman go to a second - let alone 10 - party where she believes girls are being drugged and raped? Doesn't pass any logic test. When I first heard of this, my main question was "why did she keep going to these parties - to get her turn?"
Click to expand...



This is such a stupid argument. She most likely went to many dozens parties, with only a small amount of them having those events.

However one thing they had in common was kavanaugh and his crew were there at all the train parties.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Gang rapes or trains. To paraphrase Greg Allman, I ain't no saint and I sure as hell ain't no savior. I had a wonderful time in my misspent youth, or "yute" for those from New Jersey. It was wild life at it's finest. Too much just wasn't enough.

All that and yet I never witnessed or suspected gang rapes, ever.
Click to expand...

Hear hear, I was in a damn rock and roll band, a moderately successful one (definition: played crowds > 5000 sometimes, even 10000) during the 1970's and thus NEVER EVER had any issue getting into wild parties or wild women.
No gang rapes. But I did witness guys who didn't know how to behave properly. I think we all have.

A few fumbles, some slapped faces from time to time, or drinks thrown at or poured on heads of rude clowns, even a time or two where a female knee went to a guy's sack as a response. But then it was usually over.
Witnessed my share of boyfriend/girlfriend tussles thanks to dysfunctional relationships but not between strangers.

For me, if I wasn't getting warm and positive female feedback it was a mood killer.
For guys who don't know how to behave properly it seems like the feedback they're interested in is from their buddies, not the girl.
I think they view it in terms of "what they can get off of her"...I'm sure you've all heard that turn of the phrase before.
It's all "commerce" to them...whereas to me it seems like it's supposed to more like an "exchange of gifts".
If your "gift" isn't appreciated, it stops being fun pretty quickly. At least it did in my book anyway.
 
nota bene said:
Oh, my. She's quite the colorful character.
Click to expand...

I am hoping to see her get a year less federal time than her attorney. I see she already is pissing back on the testimony he prepared for her.
 
Roadvirus said:
Ha ha! Now THIS is what perjury looks like, kids!

Avenatti's probably ****ting bricks!
Click to expand...

he should prep his own lawyer for his bar exam review.
 
What I meant by:

For guys who don't know how to behave properly it seems like the feedback they're interested in is from their buddies, not the girl.
I think they view it in terms of "what they can get off of her"...I'm sure you've all heard that turn of the phrase before.
It's all "commerce" to them...
Click to expand...

...is that guys like that either feel entitled because they are "to the manor born" or they feel that they "have paid in" and therefore deserve to "take out" what they "paid for".
Had a few drinks? Bought dinner? Took her to a movie? She's drunk? - - It's all "commerce"...they feel they deserve to "take" what they are entitled to because since she had gotten drunk, or accepted dinner or a movie, she's already "given her okay to give it up" to them.

And they're not concerned about how she feels about it so much as they want to appear manly to their buddies, manly enough to "take what's coming to them".
After all, she asked for it.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Her story is...not believable.

She has changed major parts of her original testimony.

Now it's not she saw or knew other girls were gang-raped, it's she never saw or knew anyone was being raped.

Now it's not boys waiting in lines, including Kavanaugh and Judge, it's boys huddled/standing by doors including Judge and Kavanaugh.

That when she was drugged and shoved in a room and she figured it must have been going on before.

She no longer states Kavanaugh and Judge were spiking drinks, it's now they were just near where the drinks were.

She cannot say either Kavanaugh and Judge participated in any rapes, including hers, but that they were "hanging out around" there and could have been.

She says "If Kavanaugh did this to me there is no way he should be on the SCOTUS." (How is anyone supposed to prove that?)

She says she told her mom and then reported it to the police. That she spoke to a police officer. Both that officer and her mother are now deceased.

The Police Dept. states it will take some time, up to a month, to try to go through their archives (probably paper back in the 80's).

That Kavanaugh is a (wait for it...) "Liar." That Judge is a "black-out drunk"

She dismisses the claims of sexual harassment made by a past employer.

She asserts everyone in that county knew about the parties. She provides the names of four "witnesses." One contacted states she doesn't know her. Another is (wait for it)...deceased.

MSNBC is still trying to locate/contact the other two.

Hole after hole, changing her story, mixing up information, her story is crap, including her random description of her rape (too drugged to remember of course).

This is Avenatti's "damning" witness?
Click to expand...

This multitude of contradictions from Swetnick serves to highlight Christine Blasey Ford's contradictions.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
What I meant by:



...is that guys like that either feel entitled because they are "to the manor born" or they feel that they "have paid in" and therefore deserve to "take out" what they "paid for".
Had a few drinks? Bought dinner? Took her to a movie? She's drunk? - - It's all "commerce"...they feel they deserve to "take" what they are entitled to because since she had gotten drunk, or accepted dinner or a movie, she's already "given her okay to give it up" to them.

And they're not concerned about how she feels about it so much as they want to appear manly to their buddies, manly enough to "take what's coming to them".
After all, she asked for it.
Click to expand...

One of Swetnick's doesn't even know her and another one is dead (she actually named a dead person as a witness).

Is she entitled to lie?
 
apdst said:
One of Swetnick's doesn't even know her and another one is dead (she actually named a dead person as a witness).

Is she entitled to lie?
Click to expand...

If the witnesses were still alive, they would refute Swetnick's claim. She obviously killed them so that they couldn't talk. The FBI needs to investigate these murders!
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I don’t feel like watching it right now but if she has changed her story from her sworn statement then she needs to be charged.
Click to expand...

It's pretty bad. The interviewer had to keep making declarative statements about her story when she commented on the interview later.
 
Her credibility is zero, or actually, minus ten.
Avenatti's credibility is zero, or actually, minus twenty. He is an opportunist.
Ford and Ramirez are vastly more credible but they may be mistaken about what they believe they remember, 35 years later, of memories acquired while in a state of alcohol intoxication. I think Ford was sexually assaulted, but I'm not sure if it was by Kavanaugh. I think Ramirez was made uncomfortable in some wild party and maybe a drunk Kavanaugh acted inappropriately, but she was fairly uncertain of her own story before, so I don't know how I'd be certain of it, now.
If the FBI doesn't find anything that corroborates Ford's and Ramirez's stories, I'm willing to give Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt (innocent until proven guilty).
I don't think he is fit for the SCOTUS. He is a liar (even under oath, like when he blatantly lied about his drinking habits) and a partisan hack who doesn't even start understanding the meaning of the word impartiality. But I recognize Trump's right to nominate him, and the GOP senators' right to confirm him, because elections have consequences.
 
There's a new sworn deposition out there which corroborates Swetnick Ford and Ramirez all. Despite the character assassins dirty work. The President dirtiest of all.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
What I meant by:



...is that guys like that either feel entitled because they are "to the manor born" or they feel that they "have paid in" and therefore deserve to "take out" what they "paid for".
Had a few drinks? Bought dinner? Took her to a movie? She's drunk? - - It's all "commerce"...they feel they deserve to "take" what they are entitled to because since she had gotten drunk, or accepted dinner or a movie, she's already "given her okay to give it up" to them.

And they're not concerned about how she feels about it so much as they want to appear manly to their buddies, manly enough to "take what's coming to them".
After all, she asked for it.
Click to expand...

There's no need to mince words about the phrase, "what they can get off of her." People of both sexes use each other for all manner of reasons; sex being a popular one. In my admittedly anecdotal reading of this chick from her video, she seemed pissed off at men in general. And, when she mentioned "like I was worthless" it seemed the most emotional point for her. I think this chick is probably not a woman of substance, and her sexuality is probably the only currency she's ever had with men. She's pissed about that, and instead of blaming herself, she blames men. I also think she's lying through her teeth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom