the one consistent theme was that it describes an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school.

Maybe the owner had been shot down by one and this was his revenge.

I think everyone with a modicum of knowledge about ww2 aircraft development is aware of the Zero fighter’s later shortcomings. However in the early phase of the war it was indeed a superb fighter. The Allies had several advantages in all theatres of war.

“Still, if the Democrats can keep this going, maybe there’s hope yet.”

“This story is stranger, and sadder, than it initially appears.”

“His new material is all, subtly, about how #MeToo is going too far.”

She didn’t withold consent to what happened. She didn’t even claim that. She did say that she witheld consent for sex and they didn’t have sex. Him getting grabby when they were already making out and more (she sucked his dick twice FFS) would never meet the level of “touching someone in a sexual way” that would merit…

He did cross a line. He crossed a line into “being a dick” and “pestering her for sex”. That means he acted like a douchebag, that does NOT mean he committed sexual assault. He was sleazy for sure, but saying this is the same as people who literally force themselves on people is insane. 

A crappy date/bad sex is not a crime. Stop normalizing sexual assault by applying the term to any damn thing. It’s ridiculous.

She gave some clues... but as a really stupid man who’s bad at taking clues, she was vague and lead him to believe sex was a possibility.

Well, based on the acutal events that took place, he may have learned his lesson a long time ago, like the day after it happened. As the story goes that I’ve seen, after the date she called him and said he made her uncomfortable, to which he immediately apologized and never tried to engage with her again. And since…

You just proved my point.

You saying it doesn’t make it true.

I don’t even understand this article. Was Jezebel mad that Vulture changed their story to not ruin his comedy set, so they decided to rehash it to actively try to ruin it instead?

This seems like an unneccessary article

So it’s entirely “rich assholes” who get their shit destroyed in a riot? And the poor folks who have their cars and such burned should just suck it up, even when they realistically can’t?

I thought it was too. Seems pretty fucking easy to not overturn that car or throw a brick through that window but I guess not for some.

Because burning cars and smashing windows helps overcome facism. Got it.

With the difference that antifa are actual anti-fascists*

“DPRK stands for Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It’s a democratic republic for the people. It’s right there in the name.”