Using the Democrat high school rule, Booker must resign

Nope, just using the logic of the Democratic Party High School rule...

 

The supposed rule you are talking about is an intellectually dishonest attempt to claim that the two accounts are the same. I've pointed out several ways in which they are not, all of which you have avoided. Your obsession with the Democrats is a poor excuse for avoiding these facts and trying to cover then up with partisan bickering.

 

OK.

So shouldn't Democrats, using the logic they've established during the SCOTUS hearings, demand Booker's resignation?

Or is forcibly groping a drunk teen girl's breast OK?

It seems liberals/progressives/socialists now have a litmus test for sexually assaulting a teen girl: grabbing a girl's breast is OK when she is trying to rebuff the assault, but putting a hand over her mouth is not.

Just curious, under the Democratic Party High School rule, is grabbing a girl's ass over her jeans OK if she's already told her attacker to stop?

And man, they need to address French kissing...

 

I will happily address all of the rest if you will admit that there is a fundamental difference between 1) holding a woman down against her will, preventing her escape, covering her screams, and forcefully stripping and groping her and 2) french french kissing. Can you really pretend to not see the difference there?

 

Using this standard, half of Washington should resign.

 

I don't see much of a difference between having an intoxicated teen girl trying to stop a teen boy from grabbing her breast, and him disregarding her protests and grabbing her breast anyway against her will much different than what Kavanaugh is being accused of. Yes, Kavanaugh's alleged assault went beyond what Booker admitted, but you obviously think Booker's assault didn't go far enough to be considered terrible enough to have consequences.

So, how far is OK? If Booker had grabbed her breast a second time, would that rise to your standard of accountability?

Just looking for some consistency in how Democrats apply their new rule...

 

I repeat: if you answer this question, I will gladly answer all of yours: I will happily address all of the rest if you will admit that there is a fundamental difference between 1) holding a woman down against her will, preventing her escape, covering her screams, and forcefully stripping and groping her and 2) french french kissing. Can you really pretend to not see the difference there?

I am relieved to see you admit that Kavanaugh's alleged assault is more sever than what Booker has admitted to.

 

So far you have:

– Denied Booker grabbed a teen girl's breast after the victim resisted

– Said Booker could have meant anything by the word 'mark'

– Are you are now alleging Ford was actually stripped of her clothing; she was not stripped of her clothing, you are making this up

When I correct you, you brush off your falsehoods as a typo.

You are obviously attempting to frame your argument with false information in an attempt to mitigate Booker's actions.

That said, what both men did would be considered felony sexual battery, at least in my state, California. (Although with the time frame and lack of cogent facts, Kavanaugh would never be charged. Booker, if a victim came forward, might be charged, depending on the statue of limitations in the case as he confessed to the sexual battery.)

You believe one should not face consequences for his actions, and the other should be held responsible for his alleged actions based on, I believe, the severity of the alleged assault.

Do I have this correct? That you'll excuse a sexual battery if it involves forcibly grabbing a breast, but won't excuse it if putting a hand over the mouth is added?

You are debating this based on partisan zeal and not logic, but you don't see this...

 

I will gladly answer all your questions, many of which are making false assumptions, if address what I've asked twice: I will happily address all of the rest if you will admit that there is a fundamental difference between 1) holding a woman down against her will, preventing her escape, covering her screams, and forcefully stripping and groping her and 2) french french kissing. Can you really pretend to not see the difference there?

 

1. Please show me a link where there is a description of Ford being stripped of clothes. She never alleged this in her letter or her testimony, so I'm curious as to why you believe this. She did allege she was briefly pinned by Kavanaugh, where he groped her breast, as well as placing his hand over her mouth.

2. So French kissing is on the list now? Was this alleged? I don't believe this has come up in either case. If you are referring to my reference of French kissing, I forgot that irony and sarcasm are lost on members of the Puritan Party, so I shouldn't have asked how the Democratic Party High School rule applies to this as a hypothetical question. My bad.

But now that you seem to agree that Booker finding his 'mark' was his victim's breast and not her upper arm (more sarcasm here on my part, but I think you got this one?) as well as admitted that Booker, contrary to your belief, did force himself on his victim after she told him to stop, I believe we are finally at a point where you can explain why you are discarding our rule of law in favor of partisan gain.

Thanks...

 

I got the thing about french kissing from your post. Can you answer the question? I will gladly respond to the rest, along with correcting the accompanying misconceptions, if you do. We can change "stripped" to "attempt to strip" if that is what is holding you up.

 

I looked back and I'm not quite sure what your question was? I thought you asked me to explain the difference between french kissing and groping, and I did so.

So would you mind asking again? Thanks.

 

I was asking if you were willing to acknowledge the distinction between french kissing and, well, more than just groping. The problem I have with constantly diminishing the claims to just "groping" works too. There was more to the accusation than that, and the "Even if it did happen" crowd keeps diminishing the claims by reducing it to "groping" and thus conflating it with consensual groping.

But since you already acknowledged the difference in severity between what Booker admitted to and what Kavanaugh accused of, you are getting to the heart of the matter. I'm glad we agree on that. There is a difference in severity; one thing you haven't addressed yet, however, is that Booker's admission is an admission--an admission of wrongdoing made with the intent to make amends and instruct others to avoid the same behavior. That's a pretty big difference too.

Those differences do not mean that Booker shouldn't face any consequences for his actions or that what he did was okay--the point of his admission was to admit that it WASN'T okay. All they do is show that the OP is based on a false equivalence.

If Booker's victim comes forward and wants to press charges, she has every right to. If people want to consider this when deciding whether or not to vote for Booker, they have every right to. Just as the Senators voting on Kavanaugh confirmation have every right to personally weigh the accusations against him. The presumption of innocence, contrary to the new definition being offered by some members of the Republican party, does not mean that Senators are legally compelled to vote in favor of a nominee unless he is found guilty of a crime in a court of law.

And as I've said before, I heard some suspicious things come from both Kavanaugh and Ford, giving me reason to have some doubts about both testimonies. I don't blame anyone for siding with one or the other. My problem is with the "Even if it did happen" assault apologists.

If I were in that situation, I'd want to hear from an FBI investigation before making a decision. Any uncovering of any lie during testimony on the part of Kavanaugh, however, would be disqualifying in my mind.

 

So no question?

To make it simple, both men would be liable for prosecution under California's sexual battery law. Kavanaugh is alleged to have gone further in his attack than Booker admits to, but let's be clear: both were sexual assaults.

But you are correct, we are getting to the heart of the matter:

It sounds like if Kavanaugh had admitted to the sexual assault, "an admission of wrongdoing made with the intent to make amends and instruct others to avoid the same behavior" as you put it, you would forgive him and support his appointment?

You really expect anyone to believe this?

We haven't even addressed why Feinstein concealed Ford's letter for two months, how Democratic Party operative scrubbed all of Ford's social media sites and why Democrats are trying to slow the confirmation.

This, regardless if you admit it or not, is dirty politics.

And this is the crux of the issue, why I poke fun at leftists for inventing the Democratic Party High School rule; it's simply partisan posturing in order to reach a political goal.

If Team Blue truly cared about a public figure sexually assaulting a teen while a teenage themselves, they would clean house, including distancing Booker from their party. But they, and their supporters – as you've shown – have no interest in this. The only interest they have is obtaining political power. And since they lost the presidential election, they have become unhinged about this.

Democrats have turned our sacred rule of law – innocent until proven guilty – on its head simply because of their desire to claim more political power, this time on the Supreme Court. Memories can be flawed, and Ford has nothing to show Kavanaugh attacked her other than a memory – enhanced, I'm sure, by Democratic Party officials – that it occurred. In fact, one of the woman she named, Leland Keyser, said today she does not remember the party in question, doesn't remember Kavanaugh, or has ever met Kavanaugh.

And Keyser is just the latest person that Ford claims was there who doesn't recall the incident. Yet liberals/progressives/socialists are convinced of his guilt. Why? Because it helps their political power play to do so.

I can't wait to see what you guys do when Bader has to be replaced...

 

You keep getting off track with your partisanship. Try sticking to the facts and arguments at hand. I've voted for both Democrats and Republicans. I vote in Republican primaries. I'm registered with a third party. Shelve the lib-baiting and try discussing the issues.

 

OK, fair enough. But with your belief that Booker never grabbed the breast of a teenage girl, your assertion that 'mark' might have been anything but a breast and your declaration that Ford had her clothing stripped away, I mistook you for a partisan as you seemed anything but a reasonable moderate when we first began discussing this. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and take you at your word, as I'm enjoying our discussion.

You believe Booker should be forgiven as he asked for forgiveness after sexually assaulting a teen girl; shouldn't you be curious about other victims that could be out there? Shouldn't Democrats begin looking into this with scrutiny, as they might have a predator filling one of their senate seats?

I'm also curious if you believe Ford is 100 percent correct in her memory of what occurred. So far, none of the people she's named at being at the party have corroborated her account, and most said they have never met Kavanaugh.

Doesn't this give you a reason to pause in your rush to judgement?