What's new
By:

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire

Status
Not open for further replies.
Catchall said:
Also, some of the press is going after Kavanaugh with the accusation of under-representing how much he drank, how much he partied in college, or that he was a "sloppy drunk." To me, that's neither here nor there. It may be circumstantial evidence to support that Kavanaugh couldn't control his behavior, but until a time and place are established for the actual alleged crime, that doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...

Maybe we need high school dropouts as judges and senators


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Dems don’t care if Ford was attacked or not. They are exploiting the situation, and the republicans, come hell or high waters are going to do whatever they can to push Kavanaugh as Supreme Court judge, they could care less if he raped someone or not as long as their selfish needs are met. **** this entire proceeding. If I could I’d walk straight into that sham of those proceedings and moon every last one of them and take a dump right on the middle of the floor


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thee jazz fan said:
Dems don’t care if Ford was attacked or not. They are exploiting the situation, and the republicans, come hell or high waters are going to do whatever they can to push Kavanaugh as Supreme Court judge, they could care less if he raped someone or not as long as their selfish needs are met. **** this entire proceeding. If I could I’d walk straight into that sham of those proceedings and moon every last one of them and take a dump right on the middle of the floor

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Eh. They really, really, really wanted to block Trump's nominee by any means necessary before they heard about Ford, but I don't think sympathy towards Ford is contrived. Also, whether Ford's motives are personal, political or just doing her civic duty (probably a mix of all the above), she obviously got fully on board with going public. She's being used, but I think she's been prepared and prepped well enough to be on board.

This is perfect strategy for the liberal democrats. Unleash the pent up anger of women in America who have suffered some kind of abuse or seen other women abused, and create a hostile environment for Kavanaugh and political pressure on the Republicans. A number of the media are playing into it full scale. At the end of the day though, the question will be whether this man is shown to have really assaulted this woman. Amidst all the circus, that's what's still missing.
 
♪alt13 said:
The parties are not equally bat **** crazy. Anyone that can't see that is an idiot.

Further the Republicans have total control of this circus. All 3 branches. This is their **** show.
Click to expand...

And if roles were reversed you don’t think the dems would throw Kavanaugh to the curb?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thee jazz fan said:
And if roles were reversed you don’t think the dems would throw Kavanaugh to the curb?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

IMO, the Dems would probably be arguing that Kavanaugh deserves justice, though identity politics and "me too" political pressure would play more heavily on the Dems than the Republicans, who seem to be resisting it.
 
Catchall said:
Also, some of the press is going after Kavanaugh with the accusation of under-representing how much he drank, how much he partied in college, or that he was a "sloppy drunk." To me, that's neither here nor there. It may be circumstantial evidence to support that Kavanaugh couldn't control his behavior, but until a time and place are established for the actual alleged crime, that doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...
One of the Senators asked Kavanaugh about a typical jury instruction. I don't know the latin but essentially it means that if a person under oath lies about one thing it compromises the credibility of their entire testimony.

It doesn't matter if Kavanaugh partied in HS. It matters that he is lying about it and his behaviour. He, as a nominee for the Supreme Court, knows this very very well. Yet he chooses to lie.

Disqualified, end of story.
 
Bulletproof said:
One of the Senators asked Kavanaugh about a typical jury instruction. I don't know the latin but essentially it means that if a person under oath lies about one thing it compromises the credibility of their entire testimony.

It doesn't matter if Kavanaugh partied in HS. It matters that he is lying about it and his behaviour. He, as a nominee for the Supreme Court, knows this very very well. Yet he chooses to lie.

Disqualified, end of story.
Click to expand...

This article goes heavily into what you are describing here.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying
 
Whether or not he's guilty of the alleged is almost besides the point now. Kavenaugh was dishonest throughout the entire proceeding, something that in a sane world would be disqualifying from an appointment to any court, much less the Supreme Court.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
There was a massive difference in how these two witnesses were treated. That partly explains the differences here (imagine being grilled on the contents of your yearbook, etc.). But it doesn't entirely explain the differences and I agree that he could have handled himself better.
Click to expand...
You are right, Mitchell took all of the GOP's time with Dr Ford, but when she started zeroing in on Kavanaugh's July 1st calendar entry, for a drinking party involving 3 of the 4 witnesses Ford mentioned, they decided to go ahead an take over.

This has been mentioned before, but the reason he was being asked about his yearbook is because it paints a very different kind of picture of the young Brett Kavanaugh than the one he himself was painting. The dishonesty about things that most people would find understandable is what is I find troubling, like what a devils triangle is, what it meant to be part of the 'Renate Alumnus' etc.

It's one thing to have been a boorish teenager, it's another to lie about it as an adult, especially when integrity is maybe the most important qualification for the position you are being nominated to.

Again, it's doesn't make him guilty of the assault, but it does make him guilty of giving dishonest testimony.
 
Bulletproof said:
One of the Senators asked Kavanaugh about a typical jury instruction. I don't know the latin but essentially it means that if a person under oath lies about one thing it compromises the credibility of their entire testimony.

It doesn't matter if Kavanaugh partied in HS. It matters that he is lying about it and his behaviour. He, as a nominee for the Supreme Court, knows this very very well. Yet he chooses to lie.

Disqualified, end of story.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say he's caught in a lie. He admitted to drinking, going to parties, playing drinking games. The opposition is asking him how often he threw up, if "ralphing" referred to throwing up, if he ever blacked out, and whether he was a "sloppy drunk." These things are subjective. He denied these things, but he hasn't been shown to be a liar. They were attacking his character and he was defending himself.

What specifically did he lie about?
 
Thee jazz fan said:
And if roles were reversed you don’t think the dems would throw Kavanaugh to the curb?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

All of the women(half of our population) on the SCOTUS were nominated by democrats. None of the people on the SCOTUS accused of sexual assault/harassment were nominated by democrats.

Coincidence I guess
 
♪alt13 said:
All of the women(half of our population) on the SCOTUS were nominated by democrats. None of the people on the SCOTUS accused of sexual assault/harassment were nominated by democrats.

Coincidence I guess
Click to expand...

And in both cases, the men accused are being accused in the 11th hour by politically motivated Democrats with unsubstantiated allegations.
 
Catchall said:
I wouldn't say he's caught in a lie. He admitted to drinking, going to parties, playing drinking games. The opposition is asking him how often he threw up, if "ralphing" referred to throwing up, if he ever blacked out, and whether he was a "sloppy drunk." These things are subjective. He denied these things, but he hasn't been shown to be a liar. They were attacking his character and he was defending himself.

What specifically did he lie about?
Click to expand...
He obfuscated for sure.

He could have said "yeah, I've passed out. Yeah, I am Bart o Cavanaugh. Yes I threw up in a car. Yeah, I bragged about banging a chick in High school but I never raped or tried to rape anyone."

Even if you don't believe Ford and his other accusers (I do) then you still have to think that he is slippery fibbing douche. Not SCOTUS material.

If he could have been straightforward a out any of it we could have given him some credit. He didn't. He wasn't.
 
Zombie said:
You are right, Mitchell took all of the GOP's time with Dr Ford, but when she started zeroing in on Kavanaugh's July 1st calendar entry, for a drinking party involving 3 of the 4 witnesses Ford mentioned, they decided to go ahead an take over.

This has been mentioned before, but the reason he was being asked about his yearbook is because it paints a very different kind of picture of the young Brett Kavanaugh than the one he himself was painting. The dishonesty about things that most people would find understandable is what is I find troubling, like what a devils triangle is, what it meant to be part of the 'Renate Alumnus' etc.

It's one thing to have been a boorish teenager, it's another to lie about it as an adult, especially when integrity is maybe the most important qualification for the position you are being nominated to.

Again, it's doesn't make him guilty of the assault, but it does make him guilty of giving dishonest testimony.
Click to expand...

It's true that "devil's triangle" can apparently refer to a menage a trois with two guys and a girl. It's also worth finding out what it means to be an alumnius. I'd agree with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page
Back
Top