Cuomo/Trump

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I am picturing a political debate.
Moderator:  Candidate A, what is your stance on sexual harassment?"
Candidate A:   I'm all in favor of it. 

Are you willing to confirm a S.Ct justice with serious allegations of sexual harassment, because you agree with him politically? 

[Sunstroke]

I am picturing a political debate.
Moderator:  Candidate A, what is your stance on sexual harassment?"
Candidate A:   I'm all in favor of it. 

Moderator:  Candidate B, what is your stance on sexual harassment?"
Candidate B: Usually right behind her, knees slightly bent...

[Dolphster]

Are you willing to confirm a S.Ct justice with serious allegations of sexual harassment, because you agree with him politically?  

I'm a little confused by your asking me that question.  I was taking your comment about the "pro sexual predators caucus" and making a joke about what the debate would sound like with a candidate from the "pro sexual harassment caucus"

But to answer your question, given the exact wording of your question being "serious allegations", I am going to take that as meaning serious equates to enough specific information being available to give the allegations credence and the fact that you said allegations plural meaning that there are multiple credible allegations.  So under those parameters, I would definitely not be willing to confirm a Supreme Court justice until the investigative process ran it's course.  Regardless of whether I agreed with him politically or not.  But the accusations would have to have some face value merit because it is certainly not beyond the scope of possibility for opponents of a Supreme Court nominee to find someone willing to make false allegations in order to try to prevent the nominee from moving forward in the process.  Of course what  constitutes "face value merit" could get into some gray areas.  

I should probably add that I don't look at the political beliefs of Supreme Court nominees nearly as much as I look at their documented history of interpreting laws in a manner which shows an allegiance to intent of the law that far exceeds their own political beliefs.  Ideally, I want a Supreme Court justice to be apolitical in that they don't make rulings based on political philosophy, but on case law and unbiased consideration of the case before them.

[Dolphster]

Moderator:  Candidate B, what is your stance on sexual harassment?"
Candidate B: Usually right behind her, knees slightly bent...

We should team up to write Saturday Night Live skits.  Especially since the show hasn't been funny in 30 years (yeah, I'm one of those SNL sucks now people).

[Sunstroke]

We should team up to write Saturday Night Live skits.  Especially since the show hasn't been funny in 30 years (yeah, I'm one of those SNL sucks now people).

I  was never a big SNL fan. Actually, the last time I watched a full SNL show, I'm pretty sure Belushi was involved.  

[ArtieChokePhin]

I  was never a big SNL fan. Actually, the last time I watched a full SNL show, I'm pretty sure Belushi was involved.  

John or Jim?   If John, you definitely go way way back.   I remember the Dolphins drafting a tackle that looked almost exactly like him.  Unfortunately said tackle didn't pan out.

[Dolphster]

John or Jim?   If John, you definitely go way way back.   I remember the Dolphins drafting a tackle that looked almost exactly like him.  Unfortunately said tackle didn't pan out.

LOL, I would like to hear who that DT was if you can remember.  It would be pretty funny to look him up and compare.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I'm a little confused by your asking me that question.  I was taking your comment about the "pro sexual predators caucus" and making a joke about what the debate would sound like with a candidate from the "pro sexual harassment caucus"

But to answer your question, given the exact wording of your question being "serious allegations", I am going to take that as meaning serious equates to enough specific information being available to give the allegations credence and the fact that you said allegations plural meaning that there are multiple credible allegations.  So under those parameters, I would definitely not be willing to confirm a Supreme Court justice until the investigative process ran it's course.  Regardless of whether I agreed with him politically or not.  But the accusations would have to have some face value merit because it is certainly not beyond the scope of possibility for opponents of a Supreme Court nominee to find someone willing to make false allegations in order to try to prevent the nominee from moving forward in the process.  Of course what  constitutes "face value merit" could get into some gray areas.  

I should probably add that I don't look at the political beliefs of Supreme Court nominees nearly as much as I look at their documented history of interpreting laws in a manner which shows an allegiance to intent of the law that far exceeds their own political beliefs.  Ideally, I want a Supreme Court justice to be apolitical in that they don't make rulings based on political philosophy, but on case law and unbiased consideration of the case before them.

Basically I was implying that anyone who voted to confirm Kavanaugh is a member of the pro-sexual harassment caucus.  That would be the moderator’s question, not a question to you.

[Phishfan]

LOL, I would like to hear who that DT was if you can remember.  It would be pretty funny to look him up and compare.

He was an offensive tackle. I can't remember his name because I kept referring to him as Bluto. As Artie said, the guy didn't pan out. Probably never find him without the name. Google wasn't helping me.

[pondwater]

Basically I was implying that anyone who voted to confirm Kavanaugh is a member of the pro-sexual harassment caucus.

Those weren't anywhere close to credible allegations. Anyone who thinks they were is retarded LMAO

[Dolphster]

Basically I was implying that anyone who voted to confirm Kavanaugh is a member of the pro-sexual harassment caucus.

Ah, okay.  Now I understand.  Thanks for clarifying. 

[ArtieChokePhin]

LOL, I would like to hear who that DT was if you can remember.  It would be pretty funny to look him up and compare.

He was an offensive tackle. I can't remember his name because I kept referring to him as Bluto. As Artie said, the guy didn't pan out. Probably never find him without the name. Google wasn't helping me.

Joe Toledo was his name.  I remember reading in the Miami Herald from one of the Dolphins beat writers that he had a striking resemblance to John Belushi.  I think it was in 2007.

[Sunstroke]

^^^ I was a big Joe Toledo fan when we drafted him...really thought he could be pretty good. I never noticed it before, but maybe a little similarity in coloration and the chubby cheek action.

[Dolphster]

Ha, I remembered the name when I read it.  But I don't really recall anything about him as a player. 

[Spider-Dan]

And Cuomo is out.
Nice that we have actual standards of behavior on the left.

It will be fun to note how many conservatives currently wet with crocodile tears about the death of masculinity were also screaming about Joe Biden holding a child's shoulders at a public ceremony.