Poll

Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

Yay!
Nay!
Who cares? The SCOTUS doesn't matter anyways.

Author Topic: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?  (Read 58834 times)

crispy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 457
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1300 on: October 05, 2018, 09:55:21 PM »
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 213
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1301 on: October 05, 2018, 09:57:05 PM »
Man. This place got real salty.

The way I see it, as liberals shift towards "equality" Roe V Wade would need to be reconsidered at some point. Reproduction Rights will gradually shift from "preventatives" to "improving offspring" as our understanding of genetics improves. Unless we're cool with Rich people making their children smarter, faster, stronger before birth.

Is Kavanaugh a bad choice? Not sure. I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. As GuitarStv pointed out "Congress has some of the sharpest minds in America" so if they think his jurisprudence is good, that is all that matters. We never really had any control over this.

So go process your grief. A battle that was coming  is now going to be here soon. And hell, Democrats can blame Republicans now for the loss of Roe V Wade instead of dismantling it themselves. (I'm betting big on the social equality becoming a big issue.)
Insightful and thoughtful comments regarding the improvement of the genetic stock of our blood from the NSDAP candidate, Adolf Hitler. Thank you sir! I shall keep your wise remarks in mind as I hasten to the ballot box forthwith

(Sigh)
For your reading.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/designer-babies-and-the-pro-choice-movement

And that was written before CRISPR was found in 2012. We have the means to edit genes individually now.

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1302 on: October 05, 2018, 10:38:11 PM »
Man. This place got real salty.

The way I see it, as liberals shift towards "equality" Roe V Wade would need to be reconsidered at some point. Reproduction Rights will gradually shift from "preventatives" to "improving offspring" as our understanding of genetics improves. Unless we're cool with Rich people making their children smarter, faster, stronger before birth.

Is Kavanaugh a bad choice? Not sure. I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. As GuitarStv pointed out "Congress has some of the sharpest minds in America" so if they think his jurisprudence is good, that is all that matters. We never really had any control over this.

So go process your grief. A battle that was coming  is now going to be here soon. And hell, Democrats can blame Republicans now for the loss of Roe V Wade instead of dismantling it themselves. (I'm betting big on the social equality becoming a big issue.)
Insightful and thoughtful comments regarding the improvement of the genetic stock of our blood from the NSDAP candidate, Adolf Hitler. Thank you sir! I shall keep your wise remarks in mind as I hasten to the ballot box forthwith

(Sigh)
For your reading.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/designer-babies-and-the-pro-choice-movement

And that was written before CRISPR was found in 2012. We have the means to edit genes individually now.

Okay. Who cares? Is anyone even opposed to this? Has anyone even tried legislating against it? Maybe it will be a hot button issue someday but right now it's pretty far down the list of things I'm concerned about from the new Supreme Court.

That's not to say I don't care about the new Supreme Court. I care immensely and I'm furious at everyone who allowed Kavanaugh to be confirmed, and I hope that Democrats eventually regain control of the government and either pack the court or impeach Kavanaugh or both. But I care about the Supreme Court because of other, much more important issues than this. I didn't even know this was an issue at all.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4951
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1303 on: October 05, 2018, 11:25:07 PM »
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1304 on: October 06, 2018, 12:33:19 AM »
Fuck waiting for Trump to be out of office. If Democrats retake the Senate (which is admittedly unlikely, but still possible) they should just confirm Merrick Garland. He's been nominated. So what if it isn't the current president that nominated him? He was still nominated, and he never got his due confirmation hearing.

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1170
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1305 on: October 06, 2018, 01:06:26 AM »
Fuck waiting for Trump to be out of office. If Democrats retake the Senate (which is admittedly unlikely, but still possible) they should just confirm Merrick Garland. He's been nominated. So what if it isn't the current president that nominated him? He was still nominated, and he never got his due confirmation hearing.

Garland's nomination expired when the 114th Congress adjourned on Jan 3 2017.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1306 on: October 06, 2018, 02:05:05 AM »
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

I had never heard of it in either context, and I'm about the same age as K. In that era, the Devil's Triangle was a place where ships disappeared near Bermuda. We talked a lot about sex in high school, and threesomes (all theoretically). Somewhere it is a slang term for a threesome. Maybe it was also back in 1980 in Georgetown. Any 50-something years old Georgetowners here who can chime in?

There is no clear, unbiased source for any of these allegations either way. If you liked K before the nomination, you probably still do. If you are still bitter about Clinton's legal troubles back in the 90s, you probably hate K. I see nothing but partisan payback for Garland, who was partisan payback for Thomas, Bork and many others going back a generation.


Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1307 on: October 06, 2018, 02:22:41 AM »
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

I had never heard of it in either context, and I'm about the same age as K. In that era, the Devil's Triangle was a place where ships disappeared near Bermuda. We talked a lot about sex in high school, and threesomes (all theoretically). Somewhere it is a slang term for a threesome. Maybe it was also back in 1980 in Georgetown. Any 50-something years old Georgetowners here who can chime in?

There is no clear, unbiased source for any of these allegations either way. If you liked K before the nomination, you probably still do. If you are still bitter about Clinton's legal troubles back in the 90s, you probably hate K. I see nothing but partisan payback for Garland, who was partisan payback for Thomas, Bork and many others going back a generation.
It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1308 on: October 06, 2018, 02:58:24 AM »

[/quote]
It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.
[/quote]

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 213
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1309 on: October 06, 2018, 04:33:12 AM »
Man. This place got real salty.

The way I see it, as liberals shift towards "equality" Roe V Wade would need to be reconsidered at some point. Reproduction Rights will gradually shift from "preventatives" to "improving offspring" as our understanding of genetics improves. Unless we're cool with Rich people making their children smarter, faster, stronger before birth.

Is Kavanaugh a bad choice? Not sure. I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. As GuitarStv pointed out "Congress has some of the sharpest minds in America" so if they think his jurisprudence is good, that is all that matters. We never really had any control over this.

So go process your grief. A battle that was coming  is now going to be here soon. And hell, Democrats can blame Republicans now for the loss of Roe V Wade instead of dismantling it themselves. (I'm betting big on the social equality becoming a big issue.)
Insightful and thoughtful comments regarding the improvement of the genetic stock of our blood from the NSDAP candidate, Adolf Hitler. Thank you sir! I shall keep your wise remarks in mind as I hasten to the ballot box forthwith

(Sigh)
For your reading.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/designer-babies-and-the-pro-choice-movement

And that was written before CRISPR was found in 2012. We have the means to edit genes individually now.

Okay. Who cares? Is anyone even opposed to this? Has anyone even tried legislating against it? Maybe it will be a hot button issue someday but right now it's pretty far down the list of things I'm concerned about from the new Supreme Court.

That's not to say I don't care about the new Supreme Court. I care immensely and I'm furious at everyone who allowed Kavanaugh to be confirmed, and I hope that Democrats eventually regain control of the government and either pack the court or impeach Kavanaugh or both. But I care about the Supreme Court because of other, much more important issues than this. I didn't even know this was an issue at all.

We are talking about the Supreme Court. Specifically the fact that conservatives will be in charge for decades. The technology is here today. It is being worked on.

I am trying to get you ahead of the curve. People here think Roe V Wade should be an absolute. People here also want social equality. What happens when those things are on a collision course?

Hmm... Maybe pointing out Roe V Wade is going to be challenged on different ethical grounds isn't reassuring.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3582
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1310 on: October 06, 2018, 04:47:35 AM »

It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.
[/quote]

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.
[/quote]

Perhaps instead of asking a woman or ally to do your work for you, you could do it for yourself?

Because why the fuck should someone do for you something you are too lazy to do for yourself.

And perhaps next time you could inform yourself before adding your comment too.

Because from here your quoted comment looks like the sort of unthinking, entitled male response that has been all too prevalent lately.


Edited to add: oh, and please get your quotes right.  The formatting of your post was a mess.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2018, 05:13:45 AM by former player »

crispy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 457
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1311 on: October 06, 2018, 05:11:37 AM »
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

Better yet, I don't care! It was a high school yearbook. He may have been a drunk manwhore, but that does he mean he was a rapist. His friends from high school back his story. No one backs her story. No one.

crispy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 457
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1312 on: October 06, 2018, 05:15:39 AM »

It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.
[/quote]

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.
[/quote]

I would like to know, too. There are no corroborating witnesses as far as I saw, and I have read and watched this from the beginning.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3582
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1313 on: October 06, 2018, 05:25:17 AM »

It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.
[/quote]

I would like to know, too. There are no corroborating witnesses as far as I saw, and I have read and watched this from the beginning.
[/quote]

Please see my previous post.  Thank you.

craimund

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1314 on: October 06, 2018, 05:35:24 AM »

It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.
[/quote]

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.
[/quote]

The 4 so-called corroborating witnesses include her husband who she allegedly told about the assault in 2012 (without mentioning Kavanaugh) and some friends/neighbors she told in 2018 that Kavanaugh assaulted her.  This was after his name was floated as a SCOTUS nominee.  These "witnesses" do not corroborate the alleged assault.

crispy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 457
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1315 on: October 06, 2018, 05:39:19 AM »

It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.

I would like to know, too. There are no corroborating witnesses as far as I saw, and I have read and watched this from the beginning.
[/quote]

Please see my previous post.  Thank you.
[/quote]

I did. They don't exist because not even her best friend can corroborate her story.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3582
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1316 on: October 06, 2018, 05:39:41 AM »

It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.
[/quote]

The 4 so-called corroborating witnesses include her husband who she allegedly told about the assault in 2012 (without mentioning Kavanaugh) and some friends/neighbors she told in 2018 that Kavanaugh assaulted her.  This was after his name was floated as a SCOTUS nominee.  These "witnesses" do not corroborate the alleged assault.
[/quote]


You appear to be forgetting 1) her therapist - medical witnesses are counted as strong witnesses in court, were we in court, and 2) the lie detector test and the ex  FBI agent who took it.

Please do not try to mislead the conversation by providing inaccurate information.  If you cannot give accurate information you are not advancing the discussion and should not be posting.  Thank you.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3582
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1317 on: October 06, 2018, 05:48:40 AM »

It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.

I would like to know, too. There are no corroborating witnesses as far as I saw, and I have read and watched this from the beginning.

Please see my previous post.  Thank you.
[/quote]

I did. They don't exist because not even her best friend can corroborate her story.
[/quote]

You appear not to understand the meaning of "corroboration", either inside or outside of a court of law.

Unique User

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 473
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1318 on: October 06, 2018, 06:19:55 AM »
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

I had never heard of it in either context, and I'm about the same age as K. In that era, the Devil's Triangle was a place where ships disappeared near Bermuda. We talked a lot about sex in high school, and threesomes (all theoretically). Somewhere it is a slang term for a threesome. Maybe it was also back in 1980 in Georgetown. Any 50-something years old Georgetowners here who can chime in?

There is no clear, unbiased source for any of these allegations either way. If you liked K before the nomination, you probably still do. If you are still bitter about Clinton's legal troubles back in the 90s, you probably hate K. I see nothing but partisan payback for Garland, who was partisan payback for Thomas, Bork and many others going back a generation.

What do you need?  Other people saying I saw Kavanaugh assault someone before you believe them?  There may not have been witnesses who are willing (who knows how willing Mark Judge is) to say they saw Kavanaugh assault Christine Ford, but there were witnesses to his actions against Deborah Ramirez.  The FBI didn't f*&%king follow up.  And they didn't follow up with the people that have written proof that Kavanaugh tried to stop that story from coming out even though he testified before the Senate on Sept 27th that he only found out about that story when it appeared in the news.  Written proof of just one of his lies.  He lied.  He lied repeatedly.  He lied about stupid things like home improvements for which he would need permits that have been proven to not exist.  He is a lying liar who lies.  This is not about bitterness toward his actions against the Clintons, it's about the fact that he is an entitled, lying hack with shady finances who has no business on the Supreme Court or any court. 

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1661
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1319 on: October 06, 2018, 06:30:02 AM »
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

Better yet, I don't care! It was a high school yearbook. He may have been a drunk manwhore, but that does he mean he was a rapist. His friends from high school back his story. No one backs her story. No one.

So you accuse Ford of lying, without actual evidence. But when it's pointed out that Kavanaugh lied to the Senate you shrug your shoulders and simply don't care.

For the record, not that it matters because integrity in't something you concern yourself with, saying "I don't remember the alleged incident" isn't the same thing as "Kavanaugh did nothing to her." And yes folks do back her story.

"Dr. Ford’s counsel has provided a statement from Keith Koegler, Ford’s friend and corroborating witness who was not permitted to testify or be interviewed by the FBI. In a signed declaration, he shared an account of two interactions he had with Ford in which she spoke about Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assault years before he was nominated to the Supreme Court."


crispy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 457
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1320 on: October 06, 2018, 06:31:58 AM »

It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.

I would like to know, too. There are no corroborating witnesses as far as I saw, and I have read and watched this from the beginning.

Please see my previous post.  Thank you.

I did. They don't exist because not even her best friend can corroborate her story.
[/quote]

You appear not to understand the meaning of "corroboration", either inside or outside of a court of law.
[/quote]

I never claimed to be a lawyer, but those therapy notes don't mention Brett Kavanaugh, but do say the attack happened when she was in her late teens in the mid-80s. They are pretty inconsistent with her Senate testimony. Sorry, I don't see them as corroborating evidence.


crispy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 457
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1321 on: October 06, 2018, 06:40:17 AM »
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

Better yet, I don't care! It was a high school yearbook. He may have been a drunk manwhore, but that does he mean he was a rapist. His friends from high school back his story. No one backs her story. No one.

So you accuse Ford of lying, without actual evidence. But when it's pointed out that Kavanaugh lied to the Senate you shrug your shoulders and simply don't care.

For the record, not that it matters because integrity in't something you concern yourself with, saying "I don't remember the alleged incident" isn't the same thing as "Kavanaugh did nothing to her." And yes folks do back her story.

"Dr. Ford’s counsel has provided a statement from Keith Koegler, Ford’s friend and corroborating witness who was not permitted to testify or be interviewed by the FBI. In a signed declaration, he shared an account of two interactions he had with Ford in which she spoke about Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assault years before he was nominated to the Supreme Court."


His high school classmates have confirmed his version of events and his definition of Devil's Triangle, whether you agree or not. He admits to drinking a lot. I don't see the inconsistencies in his story that you are seeing.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11852
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1322 on: October 06, 2018, 06:46:44 AM »
Man. This place got real salty.

The way I see it, as liberals shift towards "equality" Roe V Wade would need to be reconsidered at some point. Reproduction Rights will gradually shift from "preventatives" to "improving offspring" as our understanding of genetics improves. Unless we're cool with Rich people making their children smarter, faster, stronger before birth.

Is Kavanaugh a bad choice? Not sure. I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. As GuitarStv pointed out "Congress has some of the sharpest minds in America" so if they think his jurisprudence is good, that is all that matters. We never really had any control over this.

So go process your grief. A battle that was coming  is now going to be here soon. And hell, Democrats can blame Republicans now for the loss of Roe V Wade instead of dismantling it themselves. (I'm betting big on the social equality becoming a big issue.)
Insightful and thoughtful comments regarding the improvement of the genetic stock of our blood from the NSDAP candidate, Adolf Hitler. Thank you sir! I shall keep your wise remarks in mind as I hasten to the ballot box forthwith

(Sigh)
For your reading.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/designer-babies-and-the-pro-choice-movement

And that was written before CRISPR was found in 2012. We have the means to edit genes individually now.

Okay. Who cares? Is anyone even opposed to this? Has anyone even tried legislating against it? Maybe it will be a hot button issue someday but right now it's pretty far down the list of things I'm concerned about from the new Supreme Court.

That's not to say I don't care about the new Supreme Court. I care immensely and I'm furious at everyone who allowed Kavanaugh to be confirmed, and I hope that Democrats eventually regain control of the government and either pack the court or impeach Kavanaugh or both. But I care about the Supreme Court because of other, much more important issues than this. I didn't even know this was an issue at all.

We are talking about the Supreme Court. Specifically the fact that conservatives will be in charge for decades. The technology is here today. It is being worked on.

I am trying to get you ahead of the curve. People here think Roe V Wade should be an absolute. People here also want social equality. What happens when those things are on a collision course?

Hmm... Maybe pointing out Roe V Wade is going to be challenged on different ethical grounds isn't reassuring.

You're concerned about a theoretical potential problem.  That's perfectly valid and is forward thinking.  Roe V Wade solves common, real problems that exist today.  While there's no reason that a future ruling can't modify and place specific limitations on the descision should it be deemed necessary in the future, a move today to wholesale repeal the descision (even if there's the possibility of needing to do so at some point in the future) will negatively impact hundreds of thousands of people.  Even if the theoretical problem you have outlined does become a real one in the future, I feel that there are better ways to decide about it than appointing a man who has indicated that he wants to change decades of precedent purely for religious and partisan reasons.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1323 on: October 06, 2018, 07:05:48 AM »

It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.
[/quote]

Perhaps instead of asking a woman or ally to do your work for you, you could do it for yourself?

Because why the fuck should someone do for you something you are too lazy to do for yourself.

And perhaps next time you could inform yourself before adding your comment too.

Because from here your quoted comment looks like the sort of unthinking, entitled male response that has been all too prevalent lately.


Edited to add: oh, and please get your quotes right.  The formatting of your post was a mess.
[/quote]

Sorry about the quotes. I was trying to snip the length to make it easier. Obviously failed.

As to doing it myself. I had immediately tried Googling, and failed to find anything like 4 strong, well-corroborated witnesses. Just more partisan bickering. I was hoping some kind person would help, if they knew of a reliable, reasonably even-handed accounting. I want neither the New York Times version nor the Fox News version, and if nothing better is offered, I'll assume you have nothing better.

You say you have strong evidence. If you make strong statements, you should be ready to back them up. So far just insults and name-calling.

Perhaps some other person here knows who these 4 people are and has a link to a source that is not insanely Repub or Dem? I honestly looked through several Google pages, and found only links to hotheads.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1661
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1324 on: October 06, 2018, 07:08:12 AM »
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

Better yet, I don't care! It was a high school yearbook. He may have been a drunk manwhore, but that does he mean he was a rapist. His friends from high school back his story. No one backs her story. No one.

So you accuse Ford of lying, without actual evidence. But when it's pointed out that Kavanaugh lied to the Senate you shrug your shoulders and simply don't care.

For the record, not that it matters because integrity in't something you concern yourself with, saying "I don't remember the alleged incident" isn't the same thing as "Kavanaugh did nothing to her." And yes folks do back her story.

"Dr. Ford’s counsel has provided a statement from Keith Koegler, Ford’s friend and corroborating witness who was not permitted to testify or be interviewed by the FBI. In a signed declaration, he shared an account of two interactions he had with Ford in which she spoke about Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assault years before he was nominated to the Supreme Court."


His high school classmates have confirmed his version of events and his definition of Devil's Triangle, whether you agree or not. He admits to drinking a lot. I don't see the inconsistencies in his story that you are seeing.

No they haven't. I'll repeat one more time, but I think it's pretty clear you are simply trolling now:
Saying "I don't remember the alleged incident" isn't the same thing as "Kavanaugh did nothing to her."

James Roche, Kavanaugh's former roommate, claimed it was common knowledge that the phrase "Devils' Triangle" was sexual in nature.


craimund

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1325 on: October 06, 2018, 07:47:17 AM »

It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.

The 4 so-called corroborating witnesses include her husband who she allegedly told about the assault in 2012 (without mentioning Kavanaugh) and some friends/neighbors she told in 2018 that Kavanaugh assaulted her.  This was after his name was floated as a SCOTUS nominee.  These "witnesses" do not corroborate the alleged assault.
[/quote]


You appear to be forgetting 1) her therapist - medical witnesses are counted as strong witnesses in court, were we in court, and 2) the lie detector test and the ex  FBI agent who took it.

Please do not try to mislead the conversation by providing inaccurate information.  If you cannot give accurate information you are not advancing the discussion and should not be posting.  Thank you.
[/quote]

Therapist conversation took place in 2012.  30 some years after the alleged incident occurred.  How does this corroborate the assault?  Also my understanding that Kavanaugh's name not mentioned.

Lie detector even if valid only means that she believes the story she's telling, not that it actually happened.  lie detector tests are not considered reliable and are not admissible as evidence in court.

Initially she did not even remember the year of the alleged assault much less the month and day.  Apparently settled on 1982 as the year after talking to her Democrat activist legal team.

Ramirez didn't even initially remember who waved the willie.  Called potential witnesses to see if they could pin it on Kavanaugh.  After a week consulting with her attorneys, decided it was Kavanaugh.  This looks extremely fishy.

Seems like you are the one not advancing the conversation.

craimund

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1326 on: October 06, 2018, 07:51:02 AM »
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

Better yet, I don't care! It was a high school yearbook. He may have been a drunk manwhore, but that does he mean he was a rapist. His friends from high school back his story. No one backs her story. No one.

So you accuse Ford of lying, without actual evidence. But when it's pointed out that Kavanaugh lied to the Senate you shrug your shoulders and simply don't care.

For the record, not that it matters because integrity in't something you concern yourself with, saying "I don't remember the alleged incident" isn't the same thing as "Kavanaugh did nothing to her." And yes folks do back her story.

"Dr. Ford’s counsel has provided a statement from Keith Koegler, Ford’s friend and corroborating witness who was not permitted to testify or be interviewed by the FBI. In a signed declaration, he shared an account of two interactions he had with Ford in which she spoke about Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assault years before he was nominated to the Supreme Court."


His high school classmates have confirmed his version of events and his definition of Devil's Triangle, whether you agree or not. He admits to drinking a lot. I don't see the inconsistencies in his story that you are seeing.

No they haven't. I'll repeat one more time, but I think it's pretty clear you are simply trolling now:
Saying "I don't remember the alleged incident" isn't the same thing as "Kavanaugh did nothing to her."

James Roche, Kavanaugh's former roommate, claimed it was common knowledge that the phrase "Devils' Triangle" was sexual in nature.

Kavanaugh used that phrase in his high school yearbook.  He went to high school in suburban Maryland.  Yale is in New Haven, CT.  Find it difficult to believe that Yalies were using lingo from Kavanaugh's prep school in MD.

Also, I'm the same age as Kavanaugh and from the same geographic area and never heard that expression or "boof".  How are you so sure what it means?

craimund

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1327 on: October 06, 2018, 07:55:20 AM »

It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.


Perhaps instead of asking a woman or ally to do your work for you, you could do it for yourself?

Because why the fuck should someone do for you something you are too lazy to do for yourself.

And perhaps next time you could inform yourself before adding your comment too.

Because from here your quoted comment looks like the sort of unthinking, entitled male response that has been all too prevalent lately.


Edited to add: oh, and please get your quotes right.  The formatting of your post was a mess.
[/quote]

Sorry about the quotes. I was trying to snip the length to make it easier. Obviously failed.

As to doing it myself. I had immediately tried Googling, and failed to find anything like 4 strong, well-corroborated witnesses. Just more partisan bickering. I was hoping some kind person would help, if they knew of a reliable, reasonably even-handed accounting. I want neither the New York Times version nor the Fox News version, and if nothing better is offered, I'll assume you have nothing better.

You say you have strong evidence. If you make strong statements, you should be ready to back them up. So far just insults and name-calling.

Perhaps some other person here knows who these 4 people are and has a link to a source that is not insanely Repub or Dem? I honestly looked through several Google pages, and found only links to hotheads.
[/quote]

Link attached.  All 4 "corroborating" witnesses say that she told them something about an assault in the 2012-2018 timeframe.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-told-four-people-sexual-assault-claims/1429270002/

craimund

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1328 on: October 06, 2018, 08:04:04 AM »
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

Better yet, I don't care! It was a high school yearbook. He may have been a drunk manwhore, but that does he mean he was a rapist. His friends from high school back his story. No one backs her story. No one.

So you accuse Ford of lying, without actual evidence. But when it's pointed out that Kavanaugh lied to the Senate you shrug your shoulders and simply don't care.

For the record, not that it matters because integrity in't something you concern yourself with, saying "I don't remember the alleged incident" isn't the same thing as "Kavanaugh did nothing to her." And yes folks do back her story.

"Dr. Ford’s counsel has provided a statement from Keith Koegler, Ford’s friend and corroborating witness who was not permitted to testify or be interviewed by the FBI. In a signed declaration, he shared an account of two interactions he had with Ford in which she spoke about Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assault years before he was nominated to the Supreme Court."


His high school classmates have confirmed his version of events and his definition of Devil's Triangle, whether you agree or not. He admits to drinking a lot. I don't see the inconsistencies in his story that you are seeing.

No they haven't. I'll repeat one more time, but I think it's pretty clear you are simply trolling now:
Saying "I don't remember the alleged incident" isn't the same thing as "Kavanaugh did nothing to her."

James Roche, Kavanaugh's former roommate, claimed it was common knowledge that the phrase "Devils' Triangle" was sexual in nature.

Kavanaugh's name was being discussed openly as early as 2012 as a top potential Supreme Court nominee for a Republican President (Romney in that case).

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/04/20/10-Top-Court-Candidates-If-Romney-Wins

Maybe that's how he got associated with Blasey-Ford's recovered memory.  She apparently dated a friend of Kavanaugh in high school so she knew of him at least.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 213
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1329 on: October 06, 2018, 08:48:03 AM »
Man. This place got real salty.

The way I see it, as liberals shift towards "equality" Roe V Wade would need to be reconsidered at some point. Reproduction Rights will gradually shift from "preventatives" to "improving offspring" as our understanding of genetics improves. Unless we're cool with Rich people making their children smarter, faster, stronger before birth.

Is Kavanaugh a bad choice? Not sure. I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. As GuitarStv pointed out "Congress has some of the sharpest minds in America" so if they think his jurisprudence is good, that is all that matters. We never really had any control over this.

So go process your grief. A battle that was coming  is now going to be here soon. And hell, Democrats can blame Republicans now for the loss of Roe V Wade instead of dismantling it themselves. (I'm betting big on the social equality becoming a big issue.)
Insightful and thoughtful comments regarding the improvement of the genetic stock of our blood from the NSDAP candidate, Adolf Hitler. Thank you sir! I shall keep your wise remarks in mind as I hasten to the ballot box forthwith

(Sigh)
For your reading.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/designer-babies-and-the-pro-choice-movement

And that was written before CRISPR was found in 2012. We have the means to edit genes individually now.

Okay. Who cares? Is anyone even opposed to this? Has anyone even tried legislating against it? Maybe it will be a hot button issue someday but right now it's pretty far down the list of things I'm concerned about from the new Supreme Court.

That's not to say I don't care about the new Supreme Court. I care immensely and I'm furious at everyone who allowed Kavanaugh to be confirmed, and I hope that Democrats eventually regain control of the government and either pack the court or impeach Kavanaugh or both. But I care about the Supreme Court because of other, much more important issues than this. I didn't even know this was an issue at all.

We are talking about the Supreme Court. Specifically the fact that conservatives will be in charge for decades. The technology is here today. It is being worked on.

I am trying to get you ahead of the curve. People here think Roe V Wade should be an absolute. People here also want social equality. What happens when those things are on a collision course?

Hmm... Maybe pointing out Roe V Wade is going to be challenged on different ethical grounds isn't reassuring.

You're concerned about a theoretical potential problem.  That's perfectly valid and is forward thinking.  Roe V Wade solves common, real problems that exist today.  While there's no reason that a future ruling can't modify and place specific limitations on the descision should it be deemed necessary in the future, a move today to wholesale repeal the descision (even if there's the possibility of needing to do so at some point in the future) will negatively impact hundreds of thousands of people.  Even if the theoretical problem you have outlined does become a real one in the future, I feel that there are better ways to decide about it than appointing a man who has indicated that he wants to change decades of precedent purely for religious and partisan reasons.

You are correct sir. There are better ways. The current political atmosphere though is that "If you look at Roe V Wade the wrong way, prepare to be blitzed."

And that is unhelpful if you want to put nuance on a topic. I can already see the headlines "Congress wants to curtail Gene editing in the womb, abortion is next!"

So people need to start dialing down the rhetoric and consider what compromises would be acceptable.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11852
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1330 on: October 06, 2018, 09:33:02 AM »
Man. This place got real salty.

The way I see it, as liberals shift towards "equality" Roe V Wade would need to be reconsidered at some point. Reproduction Rights will gradually shift from "preventatives" to "improving offspring" as our understanding of genetics improves. Unless we're cool with Rich people making their children smarter, faster, stronger before birth.

Is Kavanaugh a bad choice? Not sure. I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. As GuitarStv pointed out "Congress has some of the sharpest minds in America" so if they think his jurisprudence is good, that is all that matters. We never really had any control over this.

So go process your grief. A battle that was coming  is now going to be here soon. And hell, Democrats can blame Republicans now for the loss of Roe V Wade instead of dismantling it themselves. (I'm betting big on the social equality becoming a big issue.)
Insightful and thoughtful comments regarding the improvement of the genetic stock of our blood from the NSDAP candidate, Adolf Hitler. Thank you sir! I shall keep your wise remarks in mind as I hasten to the ballot box forthwith

(Sigh)
For your reading.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/designer-babies-and-the-pro-choice-movement

And that was written before CRISPR was found in 2012. We have the means to edit genes individually now.

Okay. Who cares? Is anyone even opposed to this? Has anyone even tried legislating against it? Maybe it will be a hot button issue someday but right now it's pretty far down the list of things I'm concerned about from the new Supreme Court.

That's not to say I don't care about the new Supreme Court. I care immensely and I'm furious at everyone who allowed Kavanaugh to be confirmed, and I hope that Democrats eventually regain control of the government and either pack the court or impeach Kavanaugh or both. But I care about the Supreme Court because of other, much more important issues than this. I didn't even know this was an issue at all.

We are talking about the Supreme Court. Specifically the fact that conservatives will be in charge for decades. The technology is here today. It is being worked on.

I am trying to get you ahead of the curve. People here think Roe V Wade should be an absolute. People here also want social equality. What happens when those things are on a collision course?

Hmm... Maybe pointing out Roe V Wade is going to be challenged on different ethical grounds isn't reassuring.

You're concerned about a theoretical potential problem.  That's perfectly valid and is forward thinking.  Roe V Wade solves common, real problems that exist today.  While there's no reason that a future ruling can't modify and place specific limitations on the descision should it be deemed necessary in the future, a move today to wholesale repeal the descision (even if there's the possibility of needing to do so at some point in the future) will negatively impact hundreds of thousands of people.  Even if the theoretical problem you have outlined does become a real one in the future, I feel that there are better ways to decide about it than appointing a man who has indicated that he wants to change decades of precedent purely for religious and partisan reasons.

You are correct sir. There are better ways. The current political atmosphere though is that "If you look at Roe V Wade the wrong way, prepare to be blitzed."

And that is unhelpful if you want to put nuance on a topic. I can already see the headlines "Congress wants to curtail Gene editing in the womb, abortion is next!"

So people need to start dialing down the rhetoric and consider what compromises would be acceptable.

I see a supreme court that is far right of the majority of Americans, and an appointment who is very likely to repeal Roe V Wade wholesale.  What compromises exactly are you talking about?

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1661
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1331 on: October 06, 2018, 10:00:48 AM »
Kavanaugh used that phrase in his high school yearbook.  He went to high school in suburban Maryland.  Yale is in New Haven, CT.  Find it difficult to believe that Yalies were using lingo from Kavanaugh's prep school in MD.

Weird that "Kavanugh and High School friends only" lingo would appear online with meanings of sexual connotation. And that you would assert he never used the phrase past High School. Except that he did regularly use that phrase, according to his college roomate. And in the context of meaning something sexual.

Of course there is this:
"“The explanation of Devil’s Triangle does not hold water for me,” said William Fishburne, who managed the football team during Judge Kavanaugh’s senior year."

and this:
“Our senior yearbook pages were a place to have a little bit of fun with commemorating inside jokes,” said Bill Barbot, who overlapped with Judge Kavanaugh at Georgetown Prep, an all-boys Catholic school. “However, the spin that Brett was putting on it was a complete overstatement of the innocence with which they were intended.”

Quote
Also, I'm the same age as Kavanaugh and from the same geographic area and never heard that expression or "boof".  How are you so sure what it means?

I never claimed to nor made any mention of "boof." Nice straw-man though.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2018, 10:09:06 AM by MasterStache »

craimund

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1332 on: October 06, 2018, 10:07:19 AM »
Man. This place got real salty.

The way I see it, as liberals shift towards "equality" Roe V Wade would need to be reconsidered at some point. Reproduction Rights will gradually shift from "preventatives" to "improving offspring" as our understanding of genetics improves. Unless we're cool with Rich people making their children smarter, faster, stronger before birth.

Is Kavanaugh a bad choice? Not sure. I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. As GuitarStv pointed out "Congress has some of the sharpest minds in America" so if they think his jurisprudence is good, that is all that matters. We never really had any control over this.

So go process your grief. A battle that was coming  is now going to be here soon. And hell, Democrats can blame Republicans now for the loss of Roe V Wade instead of dismantling it themselves. (I'm betting big on the social equality becoming a big issue.)
Insightful and thoughtful comments regarding the improvement of the genetic stock of our blood from the NSDAP candidate, Adolf Hitler. Thank you sir! I shall keep your wise remarks in mind as I hasten to the ballot box forthwith

(Sigh)
For your reading.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/designer-babies-and-the-pro-choice-movement

And that was written before CRISPR was found in 2012. We have the means to edit genes individually now.

Okay. Who cares? Is anyone even opposed to this? Has anyone even tried legislating against it? Maybe it will be a hot button issue someday but right now it's pretty far down the list of things I'm concerned about from the new Supreme Court.

That's not to say I don't care about the new Supreme Court. I care immensely and I'm furious at everyone who allowed Kavanaugh to be confirmed, and I hope that Democrats eventually regain control of the government and either pack the court or impeach Kavanaugh or both. But I care about the Supreme Court because of other, much more important issues than this. I didn't even know this was an issue at all.

We are talking about the Supreme Court. Specifically the fact that conservatives will be in charge for decades. The technology is here today. It is being worked on.

I am trying to get you ahead of the curve. People here think Roe V Wade should be an absolute. People here also want social equality. What happens when those things are on a collision course?

Hmm... Maybe pointing out Roe V Wade is going to be challenged on different ethical grounds isn't reassuring.

You're concerned about a theoretical potential problem.  That's perfectly valid and is forward thinking.  Roe V Wade solves common, real problems that exist today.  While there's no reason that a future ruling can't modify and place specific limitations on the descision should it be deemed necessary in the future, a move today to wholesale repeal the descision (even if there's the possibility of needing to do so at some point in the future) will negatively impact hundreds of thousands of people.  Even if the theoretical problem you have outlined does become a real one in the future, I feel that there are better ways to decide about it than appointing a man who has indicated that he wants to change decades of precedent purely for religious and partisan reasons.

You are correct sir. There are better ways. The current political atmosphere though is that "If you look at Roe V Wade the wrong way, prepare to be blitzed."

And that is unhelpful if you want to put nuance on a topic. I can already see the headlines "Congress wants to curtail Gene editing in the womb, abortion is next!"

So people need to start dialing down the rhetoric and consider what compromises would be acceptable.

I see a supreme court that is far right of the majority of Americans, and an appointment who is very likely to repeal Roe V Wade wholesale.  What compromises exactly are you talking about?

There are no centrist Democrat appointees.  All are hard left, well outside the mainstream.  The only "centrist" left is Roberts, a Republican appointee, who is right of center.  The recently departed centrist is Kennedy who was a Reagan appointee.  Repubs also appointed Souter, who was a liberal jurist.  Sounds like the Dems are well outside the mainstream when it comes to judicial appointments.  Kavanaugh is closer to the center by any reasonable measure than Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan and Breyer.

El_Viajero

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 164
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1333 on: October 06, 2018, 10:12:43 AM »
I never claimed to be a lawyer, but those therapy notes don't mention Brett Kavanaugh, but do say the attack happened when she was in her late teens in the mid-80s. They are pretty inconsistent with her Senate testimony. Sorry, I don't see them as corroborating evidence.

Just because you "don't see [an instance corroborating evidence] as corroborating evidence" matters little. There is corroborating evidence of Dr. Ford's claims, the type of which puts sexual assailants in jail all the time. The Republican Party has an interest in the public not understanding that.

See: http://time.com/5406765/christine-blasey-ford-statements-brett-kavanaugh/

See also: https://hillreporter.com/keith-koegler-releases-significant-evidence-corroborating-dr-fords-claims-9543

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1661
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1334 on: October 06, 2018, 10:13:49 AM »
Maybe that's how he got associated with Blasey-Ford's recovered memory.  She apparently dated a friend of Kavanaugh in high school so she knew of him at least.

Wow, this is very shitty of you, to insist Ford who is 100% certain of who assaulted her is lying. Forgetting the exact day? sure. Forgetting the exact house and/or room? Sure I can see that. Forgetting who actually assaulted you and just throwing out a random name? Fucking bullshit. And to insist otherwise if fucking awful. Despicable! 

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3070
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1335 on: October 06, 2018, 10:23:52 AM »
Maybe that's how he got associated with Blasey-Ford's recovered memory.  She apparently dated a friend of Kavanaugh in high school so she knew of him at least.

Wow, this is very shitty of you, to insist Ford who is 100% certain of who assaulted her is lying. Forgetting the exact day? sure. Forgetting the exact house and/or room? Sure I can see that. Forgetting who actually assaulted you and just throwing out a random name? Fucking bullshit. And to insist otherwise if fucking awful. Despicable!

I wonder if this is from a lack of experience.

If you've never been involved in something traumatic like a sexual assault, you'd assume it would be seared into your memory. One would assume that the victim would remember exact dates, exact times, the paint color on the walls, etc, when, in reality, only certain things stand out exactly because it was traumatic.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11852
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1336 on: October 06, 2018, 10:30:07 AM »
Man. This place got real salty.

The way I see it, as liberals shift towards "equality" Roe V Wade would need to be reconsidered at some point. Reproduction Rights will gradually shift from "preventatives" to "improving offspring" as our understanding of genetics improves. Unless we're cool with Rich people making their children smarter, faster, stronger before birth.

Is Kavanaugh a bad choice? Not sure. I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. As GuitarStv pointed out "Congress has some of the sharpest minds in America" so if they think his jurisprudence is good, that is all that matters. We never really had any control over this.

So go process your grief. A battle that was coming  is now going to be here soon. And hell, Democrats can blame Republicans now for the loss of Roe V Wade instead of dismantling it themselves. (I'm betting big on the social equality becoming a big issue.)
Insightful and thoughtful comments regarding the improvement of the genetic stock of our blood from the NSDAP candidate, Adolf Hitler. Thank you sir! I shall keep your wise remarks in mind as I hasten to the ballot box forthwith

(Sigh)
For your reading.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/designer-babies-and-the-pro-choice-movement

And that was written before CRISPR was found in 2012. We have the means to edit genes individually now.

Okay. Who cares? Is anyone even opposed to this? Has anyone even tried legislating against it? Maybe it will be a hot button issue someday but right now it's pretty far down the list of things I'm concerned about from the new Supreme Court.

That's not to say I don't care about the new Supreme Court. I care immensely and I'm furious at everyone who allowed Kavanaugh to be confirmed, and I hope that Democrats eventually regain control of the government and either pack the court or impeach Kavanaugh or both. But I care about the Supreme Court because of other, much more important issues than this. I didn't even know this was an issue at all.

We are talking about the Supreme Court. Specifically the fact that conservatives will be in charge for decades. The technology is here today. It is being worked on.

I am trying to get you ahead of the curve. People here think Roe V Wade should be an absolute. People here also want social equality. What happens when those things are on a collision course?

Hmm... Maybe pointing out Roe V Wade is going to be challenged on different ethical grounds isn't reassuring.

You're concerned about a theoretical potential problem.  That's perfectly valid and is forward thinking.  Roe V Wade solves common, real problems that exist today.  While there's no reason that a future ruling can't modify and place specific limitations on the descision should it be deemed necessary in the future, a move today to wholesale repeal the descision (even if there's the possibility of needing to do so at some point in the future) will negatively impact hundreds of thousands of people.  Even if the theoretical problem you have outlined does become a real one in the future, I feel that there are better ways to decide about it than appointing a man who has indicated that he wants to change decades of precedent purely for religious and partisan reasons.

You are correct sir. There are better ways. The current political atmosphere though is that "If you look at Roe V Wade the wrong way, prepare to be blitzed."

And that is unhelpful if you want to put nuance on a topic. I can already see the headlines "Congress wants to curtail Gene editing in the womb, abortion is next!"

So people need to start dialing down the rhetoric and consider what compromises would be acceptable.

I see a supreme court that is far right of the majority of Americans, and an appointment who is very likely to repeal Roe V Wade wholesale.  What compromises exactly are you talking about?

There are no centrist Democrat appointees.  All are hard left, well outside the mainstream.  The only "centrist" left is Roberts, a Republican appointee, who is right of center.  The recently departed centrist is Kennedy who was a Reagan appointee.  Repubs also appointed Souter, who was a liberal jurist.  Sounds like the Dems are well outside the mainstream when it comes to judicial appointments.  Kavanaugh is closer to the center by any reasonable measure than Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan and Breyer.

Hang on, you're trying to argue that Garland wasn't centrist?  I seem to remember him being appointed by a Democratic president recently . . .

Regardless, you appear to have missed my point.  The current make up of the supreme court will tilt hard right of the majority of voters with the appointment of Kavenaugh, who has made a lot of signals that he'll repeal Roe v Wade for partisan/religious reasons.  There was a suggestion that people should consider acceptable compromises, but I'm not sure what exactly is up for consideration in this regard.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4951
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1337 on: October 06, 2018, 10:38:16 AM »
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

Better yet, I don't care! It was a high school yearbook. He may have been a drunk manwhore, but that does he mean he was a rapist. His friends from high school back his story. No one backs her story. No one.

And there it is. You do not care that a nominee for the Supreme Court lied under oath.

That pretty well sums it up.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6983
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1338 on: October 06, 2018, 10:39:58 AM »
Man. This place got real salty.

The way I see it, as liberals shift towards "equality" Roe V Wade would need to be reconsidered at some point. Reproduction Rights will gradually shift from "preventatives" to "improving offspring" as our understanding of genetics improves. Unless we're cool with Rich people making their children smarter, faster, stronger before birth.

Is Kavanaugh a bad choice? Not sure. I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. As GuitarStv pointed out "Congress has some of the sharpest minds in America" so if they think his jurisprudence is good, that is all that matters. We never really had any control over this.

So go process your grief. A battle that was coming  is now going to be here soon. And hell, Democrats can blame Republicans now for the loss of Roe V Wade instead of dismantling it themselves. (I'm betting big on the social equality becoming a big issue.)
Insightful and thoughtful comments regarding the improvement of the genetic stock of our blood from the NSDAP candidate, Adolf Hitler. Thank you sir! I shall keep your wise remarks in mind as I hasten to the ballot box forthwith

(Sigh)
For your reading.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/designer-babies-and-the-pro-choice-movement

And that was written before CRISPR was found in 2012. We have the means to edit genes individually now.

CRISPR really can't be used in humans yet. Yes, they can edit genes but there are too many unintended consequences because don't know how they interact. Hey, your baby has got blue eyes now, sorry it's liver doesn't work anymore.  It also can't be done in utero, by the time we know about a pregnancy it's too late. They'd have to be IVF babies as gene's need to be edited at conception

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6983
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1339 on: October 06, 2018, 10:41:30 AM »
In my opinion, Republicans will NEVER overturn Roe vs. Wade.

If they do, they INSTANTLY lose at least 20% of their voters. I can't tell you how many people I have talked to that tell me anti-choice is the ONLY reason they vote republican.

But the ones who rely on votes can't control the supreme Court they stacked.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3070
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1340 on: October 06, 2018, 10:43:44 AM »
And there it is. You do not care that a nominee for the Supreme Court lied under oath.

That pretty well sums it up.

Evangelical: (muttering) "It's all for Roe. It's all for Roe. It's all for Roe."

What would happen if a potential Justice was anti-choice AND wanted to remove the non-profit status of churches? Or was anti-choice AND wanted to prevent all home-schooling. Would heads explode?

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1661
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1341 on: October 06, 2018, 10:50:07 AM »
Maybe that's how he got associated with Blasey-Ford's recovered memory.  She apparently dated a friend of Kavanaugh in high school so she knew of him at least.

Wow, this is very shitty of you, to insist Ford who is 100% certain of who assaulted her is lying. Forgetting the exact day? sure. Forgetting the exact house and/or room? Sure I can see that. Forgetting who actually assaulted you and just throwing out a random name? Fucking bullshit. And to insist otherwise if fucking awful. Despicable!

I wonder if this is from a lack of experience.

If you've never been involved in something traumatic like a sexual assault, you'd assume it would be seared into your memory. One would assume that the victim would remember exact dates, exact times, the paint color on the walls, etc, when, in reality, only certain things stand out exactly because it was traumatic.

Lack of experience but also a serious lack of empathy. Empathy is apparently partisan as well.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4951
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1342 on: October 06, 2018, 11:02:04 AM »
Maybe that's how he got associated with Blasey-Ford's recovered memory.  She apparently dated a friend of Kavanaugh in high school so she knew of him at least.

Wow, this is very shitty of you, to insist Ford who is 100% certain of who assaulted her is lying. Forgetting the exact day? sure. Forgetting the exact house and/or room? Sure I can see that. Forgetting who actually assaulted you and just throwing out a random name? Fucking bullshit. And to insist otherwise if fucking awful. Despicable!

I wonder if this is from a lack of experience.

If you've never been involved in something traumatic like a sexual assault, you'd assume it would be seared into your memory. One would assume that the victim would remember exact dates, exact times, the paint color on the walls, etc, when, in reality, only certain things stand out exactly because it was traumatic.

Lack of experience but also a serious lack of empathy. Empathy is apparently partisan as well.

Having been raised deep in the religious right, I am inclined to agree.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1343 on: October 06, 2018, 11:22:05 AM »


Sorry about the quotes. I was trying to snip the length to make it easier. Obviously failed.

As to doing it myself. I had immediately tried Googling, and failed to find anything like 4 strong, well-corroborated witnesses. Just more partisan bickering. I was hoping some kind person would help, if they knew of a reliable, reasonably even-handed accounting. I want neither the New York Times version nor the Fox News version, and if nothing better is offered, I'll assume you have nothing better.

You say you have strong evidence. If you make strong statements, you should be ready to back them up. So far just insults and name-calling.

Perhaps some other person here knows who these 4 people are and has a link to a source that is not insanely Repub or Dem? I honestly looked through several Google pages, and found only links to hotheads.
[/quote]

Link attached.  All 4 "corroborating" witnesses say that she told them something about an assault in the 2012-2018 timeframe.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-told-four-people-sexual-assault-claims/1429270002/
[/quote]

Thank you. That was an interesting article.

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1344 on: October 06, 2018, 11:43:07 AM »
The other four witnesses I mentioned:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2018/09/27/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-sexual-misconduct-complete-list/

Under the section "other witnesses".

I'm not sure if these would be admissible in a criminal trial (does this fall under hearsay?) but nevertheless I take them as very compelling evidence. I find it completely implausible and ridiculous to think that this is all a long con to discredit Kavanaugh that Ford has been planning and planting evidence for since 2012. That's absurd. The much more reasonable explanation, as distasteful as it might be, is that yes, she really was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2018, 11:49:25 AM by Norioch »

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1345 on: October 06, 2018, 12:14:11 PM »
Man. This place got real salty.

The way I see it, as liberals shift towards "equality" Roe V Wade would need to be reconsidered at some point. Reproduction Rights will gradually shift from "preventatives" to "improving offspring" as our understanding of genetics improves. Unless we're cool with Rich people making their children smarter, faster, stronger before birth.

Is Kavanaugh a bad choice? Not sure. I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. As GuitarStv pointed out "Congress has some of the sharpest minds in America" so if they think his jurisprudence is good, that is all that matters. We never really had any control over this.

So go process your grief. A battle that was coming  is now going to be here soon. And hell, Democrats can blame Republicans now for the loss of Roe V Wade instead of dismantling it themselves. (I'm betting big on the social equality becoming a big issue.)
Insightful and thoughtful comments regarding the improvement of the genetic stock of our blood from the NSDAP candidate, Adolf Hitler. Thank you sir! I shall keep your wise remarks in mind as I hasten to the ballot box forthwith

(Sigh)
For your reading.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/designer-babies-and-the-pro-choice-movement

And that was written before CRISPR was found in 2012. We have the means to edit genes individually now.

Okay. Who cares? Is anyone even opposed to this? Has anyone even tried legislating against it? Maybe it will be a hot button issue someday but right now it's pretty far down the list of things I'm concerned about from the new Supreme Court.

That's not to say I don't care about the new Supreme Court. I care immensely and I'm furious at everyone who allowed Kavanaugh to be confirmed, and I hope that Democrats eventually regain control of the government and either pack the court or impeach Kavanaugh or both. But I care about the Supreme Court because of other, much more important issues than this. I didn't even know this was an issue at all.

We are talking about the Supreme Court. Specifically the fact that conservatives will be in charge for decades. The technology is here today. It is being worked on.

I am trying to get you ahead of the curve. People here think Roe V Wade should be an absolute. People here also want social equality. What happens when those things are on a collision course?

Hmm... Maybe pointing out Roe V Wade is going to be challenged on different ethical grounds isn't reassuring.

You seem to expect liberals to be opposed to gene-editing technology on the basis of "social inequality" and you seem to think that's somehow contradictory with support of Roe v. Wade, but I'm not opposed to gene-editing technology. I think it count be a very useful, probably sometimes life-saving, medical technique. I wish my parents had used it on me to cure me of my color-blindness. If you're worried this will result in a Gattaca-like dystopia of inequality based on genetics, then the solution isn't to outlaw the technology; the solution is universal healthcare so everyone has access to the technology.

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1346 on: October 06, 2018, 12:30:12 PM »
And beside that, gene editing has many other reasons to be opposed. Frankly, the ethical quandaries aren't that important to me. To me what's important is mitigating the risk of a major fuckup. Plowing headfirst with profits or pride in mind has cost a lot of lives in the past, there isn't any correcting for defective genes once born. As far as I know anyway.

craimund

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1347 on: October 06, 2018, 12:38:05 PM »
The other four witnesses I mentioned:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2018/09/27/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-sexual-misconduct-complete-list/

Under the section "other witnesses".

I'm not sure if these would be admissible in a criminal trial (does this fall under hearsay?) but nevertheless I take them as very compelling evidence. I find it completely implausible and ridiculous to think that this is all a long con to discredit Kavanaugh that Ford has been planning and planting evidence for since 2012. That's absurd. The much more reasonable explanation, as distasteful as it might be, is that yes, she really was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh.

The first mention of Kavanaugh to one of these witnesses was allegedly in 2016 not 2012.  She allegedly was talking about being assaulted by someone in 2012.  We know next to nothing about her (Blasey-Ford).  From what I have heard, she had a serious drinking problem as a teen and her parents sent her off to CA to live with a relative to get away from the party scene.  I bet there is a lot more damaging information about her in that report.  That's why the Dems haven't leaked it.

She made this a political attack when she engaged her "resist" lawyer and let the Dems use her to delay the vote.  This should have been handled in confidence.

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1348 on: October 06, 2018, 01:00:54 PM »
The other four witnesses I mentioned:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2018/09/27/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-sexual-misconduct-complete-list/

Under the section "other witnesses".

I'm not sure if these would be admissible in a criminal trial (does this fall under hearsay?) but nevertheless I take them as very compelling evidence. I find it completely implausible and ridiculous to think that this is all a long con to discredit Kavanaugh that Ford has been planning and planting evidence for since 2012. That's absurd. The much more reasonable explanation, as distasteful as it might be, is that yes, she really was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh.

The first mention of Kavanaugh to one of these witnesses was allegedly in 2016 not 2012.  She allegedly was talking about being assaulted by someone in 2012.  We know next to nothing about her (Blasey-Ford).  From what I have heard, she had a serious drinking problem as a teen and her parents sent her off to CA to live with a relative to get away from the party scene.  I bet there is a lot more damaging information about her in that report.  That's why the Dems haven't leaked it.

She made this a political attack when she engaged her "resist" lawyer and let the Dems use her to delay the vote.  This should have been handled in confidence.

We live on different planets. It's obvious to me she was sexually assaulted. And Kavanaugh is the one with the drinking problem.

runbikerun

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 322
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1349 on: October 06, 2018, 01:10:56 PM »
The other four witnesses I mentioned:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2018/09/27/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-sexual-misconduct-complete-list/

Under the section "other witnesses".

I'm not sure if these would be admissible in a criminal trial (does this fall under hearsay?) but nevertheless I take them as very compelling evidence. I find it completely implausible and ridiculous to think that this is all a long con to discredit Kavanaugh that Ford has been planning and planting evidence for since 2012. That's absurd. The much more reasonable explanation, as distasteful as it might be, is that yes, she really was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh.

The first mention of Kavanaugh to one of these witnesses was allegedly in 2016 not 2012.  She allegedly was talking about being assaulted by someone in 2012.  We know next to nothing about her (Blasey-Ford).  From what I have heard, she had a serious drinking problem as a teen and her parents sent her off to CA to live with a relative to get away from the party scene.  I bet there is a lot more damaging information about her in that report.  That's why the Dems haven't leaked it.

She made this a political attack when she engaged her "resist" lawyer and let the Dems use her to delay the vote.  This should have been handled in confidence.

Do you have anything to back up those claims? Literally anything at all?