Jesus what a sad comment.

IF it turns out the allegations are true what a sad state the USA is in when the bar for youthful exuberance is set as low as attempted rape.  I assure you there are millions of men who have never tried to forcefully take a womens clothes off while covering her mouth so she can't scream, me being one of them.

The above is completely aside from the fact that it's a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, surely they could find a guy with great moral fortitude.

My opinions are well-informed, you just don't agree with them. This is just the standard knee-jerk reaction from an insecure male who has had his masculinity and archaic opinion of women and what they should be challenged. I never said women could do no wrong either. I don't believe men and women are equal in every facet either, but this isn't convenient for your strawman. I'm just telling you why marriage was created and why it's an outdated institution, which it is. If most men were secure in themselves then they wouldn't feel the need to get trapped into a marriage that serves them no purpose at all. It's a bit of paper and a ring. That paper is a legal contract. Don't sign it, especially if you don't want to get fucked over by the law.


Where did I compare all marriage to Muslim treatment of women? I'm making a point of what happens when you let insecure men make all the rules in society and when they think they have dominion over women and their bodies and force them to cover up and shut up, or else. If we didn't have things like women's rights then we'd still be living in the dark ages where women are forced to do things like wear full body capes and their only job is to stay at home, cook and clean, be used as a self-cleaning sexdoll, and shit out babies on command.


I never said it wasn't, but the question is why would you want to compromise yourself and for what?


Traditionally being the key word. Tradition is dead men's baggage - stop carrying it. Traditionally it used to be okay to beat and rape your wife whenever you wanted. Luckily times have changed. They wouldn't have if insecure men still made all the rules of society and got their way and expected women to lie down and do what is "expected" of them, and that's what still happens in some Muslim countries where women are second-class citizens with little to no rights and are at the behest of whatever their husband (or father) wills or wants from them.


Aww, is that all you ask of them? How nice of you. Sounds like you just want a nice, docile Stepford wife to meet all your needs and desires. I never said all marriage was equivalent to ownership either, but that it used to be, and sadly still is in some countries. You can still provide and protect for a woman if financial domination is your fetish and that is what she wanted, though, but what if they don't? What if they want their own careers or don't want children? That's not okay in your book? And what if your wife didn't show you "deference" and didn't do everything you wanted? A few slaps for disrespect or indifference? Dinner not ready when you come home after a hard days work? Rape? That's what used to happen and was even often socially acceptable. You obviously have a preconditioned idea of what women should be and what they should be doing for you, and that's why sexism is still a problem because this sort of abuse used to be the norm and nobody batted an eyelid.

By the way, most women don't need providing for or protecting these days and are not damsels in distress that need rescuing, and that's obviously where the issue here lies. Do you feel useless now without a wife and kids to pay for and protect or something? Again, this always comes down to male insecurity and it's why men get so upset and aggressive other it.


LOL. Seriously? You clearly just see women by their reproductive worth. Marriage doesn't stop this and men aren't going to stick around just because of it. Anyone is free to leave the other person at any point and men are still going to trade in their wives for a younger model if they can even if it's at their own expense so don't act like marriage is doing women a favor. I think it's more likely the case that you are worried about the woman leaving you and I find this is usually the case why men even get married in the first place. Marriage is very rarely a priority for men these days and is usually the women's idea that they just get roped into it out of fear of being abandoned or being cock-blocked. I'd just say no, but men probably don't want to lose the pussy on tap and end up fat, bald and all alone so they compromise and try get a legal contract or some kids to ensure they'll at least stick around for a bit and not abandon them. Poor souls.


I think this is where you get opinions mixed up with facts. In your mind you like to think of them as discontented without a man, but I think the opposite is more likely true. There's probably many more sad old lonely men that end up on the scrapheap hating and blaming women in the process.


Oh, so only men pay for taxes and social security and women are the only ones that use it? I thought you liked paying for women any way? This is where your misogyny really becomes apparent. Some people just need somebody else to blame for their own problems or failings but the only people they should be blaming are themselves. Maybe you should go live in Nigeria like the op if you want a women who will be your own personal assistant and loyal to you until the day you die. Try find one in a tax heaven as well if you're so against taxes:

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/04/10-countries-with-zero-income-taxes.aspx

Take your pick:

    United Arab Emirates.
    Oman.
    Bahrain.
    Qatar.
    Saudi Arabia.
    Kuwait.
    Bermuda.
    Cayman Islands.

I would recommend Saudi Arabia for you. They treat women like you would probably like to over there.


By benefits you mean what? I don't see any benefits in marriage, but if you wanted to get married and were smart then there's a thing called a pre-nup. OR just don't get married. I don't get why people need a bit of paper and ring. It's meaningless. I think what you probably actually want is just a maid and a prostitute (which is essentially what marriage used to be). Would probably be cheaper for you in the long-run as well.


Checking out as in suicide? That's again to do with toxic masculinity and their inability to handle or deal with their insecurities and the failures that they often feel.


Who are you blaming for the break up of a family unit and rising divorce rates on exactly? Women? Feminism? Don't get married. That solves that problem. Marriage obviously doesn't guarantee a family unit staying together forever either and staying together just for the kids just does more damage. And are reproductive rates actually dropping, and if so, why is that a problem? Last I heard over-population is a big issue and is only going to get worse. Not sure why the world needs more kids anyhow.


Are you one of these dinosaurs that thinks everything used to be better in the good old days and the world is quickly going to hell in a hand basket? Things are far from perfect and never ever will be, but things are a lot better for both men and women in today's society, but not if you just want to treat women as cattle and use them to meet all your needs, and sorry for you, but those days are long gone and good riddance to them.


Marriage was around a lot longer before god. Religion just hijacked it.

I can't demand it. The President can and it has been done before.

I'm not a "lefty", whatever that means, but thank you for your totally non-ad-hominem attempt to paint me into a political group that you dislike just because I disagree with you.

It's not an unusual expectation to investigate allegations against someone nominated for a lifetime appointment. Lifetime. What's the rush? None of the midterms-delay-benefit cockamamie matters, particularly if the allegations are false, which would backfire badly for Democrats. On the other hand, there is virtually no losing strategy for Republicans but they're doing everything they can to create one. If they "plow through this" and lose the Senate afterwards I would laugh my non-lefty ass off. That would be totally self-inflicted (the loss, not the laugh).

The FBI can do a background investigation without a criminal case.

Is that again one of those things where you're saying "you" but it's not directed at me? But just in case it is - you're delusional if you think me posting my opinion on a Bitcoin forum is going to drive the voter base one way or another. Get over people having different opinions.

Old news from long before these allegations. McCain has already been replaced, so that's irrelevant. "if controversial matters arise from his background" is exactly why an investigation is needed unless you're saying that a person of questionable integrity on the SCOTUS is acceptable.

Republicans can vote to confirm Kavanaugh tomorrow, or during the lame duck session, there is nothing to stop them. If they're worried that they don't have enough votes in their own party - that's hardly the fault of Democrats. Perhaps the problem is not the best and brightest nominee. I don't remember much drama with Gorsuch's nomination.

My goals? Pray tell what are those? Or is it just the customary ad hominem when you run out of arguments?

A job interview is not a criminal case. Whether this benefits one side or another - remains to be seen. My guess is that nobody is gonna come out a clear winner out of this. Republicans can "plow right through" (excellent attack ad material right there) and risk alienating a good part of the largest demographic group of the electorate. Democrats can try stalling this as much as they can but they don't have any winning strategy if Republicans decide to stick with Kavanaugh. So it's a demolition derby basically. Who can crawl across the finish line.

None of it is a good reason to refuse to investigate these allegations though. If the accusers are lying the fallout would set a precedent for decades. Same if they're not. Both positive outcomes as far as I can see.

It's not a fact. Republicans have about 3 months remaining in the current session and very likely will maintain control of the Senate beyond that as well. They have better options than what they're currently doing. They can use the investigation to clear Kavanaugh's name. They can nominate someone else. There are no good options for Democrats, delay or no delay.

That's all assuming the allegations are false. If the allegations are true - that could benefit Democrats but without the control of the Senate there is not much they can do anyway...

Not really true (no statute of limitations in Maryland AFAIK) but I'm talking about a background check on Mr. Kavanaugh, not a criminal investigation.


Media is the wrong place to do that. A proper investigation would be better.


Yet the FBI often conducts background investigations for appointments like this. Even more so if it's a "political ploy" - why should we entrust this to the hyper-politicized Senate instead of a law enforcement agency?

Could it be that Trump backers are the ones who hired these dem people to accuse K just to make the dems look bad when the accusations are shown to be frivolous?