Poll

Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

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

Author Topic: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?  (Read 72406 times)

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #950 on: October 02, 2018, 05:26:37 AM »
Quote
The accusation has already anchored the public towards "rapist". Even if the investigation clears him, no body is going to remember that. People will only ever remember the "rapist" part. It doesn't matter what he did in the intervening 36 years.

Kavanaugh is pissed off because everything ground to a halt on the basis of an accusation with no evidence. He finds himself on the wrong side of the law and powerless to do anything. He could be a good judge but is still human.

Highlighted the key point.  Because if he committed rape, it doesn't actually matter what he has done since.  He still needs to be held to account.

It started out as an accusation with no evidence.  That is changing with each revelation (and new accuser).

I have a sneaking suspicion what I'll remember from all of this is Matt Damon's performance on SNL
But I agree with rocketpj - anyone who sexually assaulted another should lose their eligibility to sit on any federal court.  There are so many hundreds of qualified candidates that we need not elevate any that committed a violent criminal act.  If true, the fact that there has been no atonement, no attempt to make amends negates any forgiveness of time.

For Kavanaugh, the alleged assault is not the only disqualifier IMO.  His partisan testimony, lack of temperment and sense of entitlement should be prohibitive on their own.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #951 on: October 02, 2018, 07:01:49 AM »
Mitch McConnell is promising a floor vote on Friday.

Really Mitch??!! The same day that the FBI is supposed to submit their investigation?  That seems pretty risky - you're going to force your members to vote on something before they have time to read it.  I realize this may be the whole point, but if there's anything in there you've hung your most vulnerable members out to dry, and if there is nothing new in the report you've gained nothing by rushing the vote instead of giving everyone the weekend.

Vote Friday or vote Monday.  Friday is filled with potential land mines.  Don't keep forcing your members to keep crossing mindfields, Mitch - schedule the vote for Monday

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #952 on: October 02, 2018, 07:06:53 AM »
I don't think it's possible to have a non-partisan court for reasons explained very well in this article.  I'm not sure exactly how that impacts the various proposals mentioned, I'm just saying I don't think you can realistically separate politics and judicial philosophy.

This feels like muddying the waters.  If you're concerned about the influence of partisan politics on the judiciary, I agree there are some deep-seated connections between party affiliation and your views of proper jurisprudence but that doesn't mean you should literally hire the Vince Foster conspiracy guy

You might as well say "I worry about the influence of corporate money in politics, so I'm voting ExxonMobil for President."

Well, I don't think that's quite what I was trying to say.  I'm sure we could make some changes to the nomination process to at least mitigate the outright partisan warfare that occurs during that process.  I'm just not sure that it's healthy to cultivate the expectation that the judiciary will ever be completely non-partisan except on issues where we have a settled objective interpretation of the law.  And it seems like the judiciary actually plays a key role in determining that settled objective interpretation by adjudicating between the different subjective interpretations.  So it kind of feels like we're trying to put the cart before the horse if you will.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #953 on: October 02, 2018, 07:22:51 AM »
Mitch McConnell is promising a floor vote on Friday.

Really Mitch??!! The same day that the FBI is supposed to submit their investigation?  That seems pretty risky - you're going to force your members to vote on something before they have time to read it.  I realize this may be the whole point, but if there's anything in there you've hung your most vulnerable members out to dry, and if there is nothing new in the report you've gained nothing by rushing the vote instead of giving everyone the weekend.

Vote Friday or vote Monday.  Friday is filled with potential land mines.  Don't keep forcing your members to keep crossing mindfields, Mitch - schedule the vote for Monday

I'm somewhat surprised that Mitch didn't pick Thursday for the vote.  People were complaining a lot about an investigation, so the Republicans reluctantly agreed to have one (severely handicapped and with limited scope).  They've kept their word as far as it goes, and can tell everyone that they had the investigation.  Nobody on the Republican party promised to care about the results of the investigation.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #954 on: October 02, 2018, 08:29:20 AM »
Nobody on the Republican party promised to care about the results of the investigation.

Technically, they only agreed to have an investigation.  They didn't agree to read it, or publish the findings, or even postpone the vote until after it was finished.

Mitch played this same game with health care and the tax bill.  He can make all kinds of promises to his members in order to get them on board, and then he can completely disregard those promises because he holds all of the power and is beholden to no one.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3743
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #955 on: October 02, 2018, 08:49:44 AM »
Nobody on the Republican party promised to care about the results of the investigation.

Technically, they only agreed to have an investigation.  They didn't agree to read it, or publish the findings, or even postpone the vote until after it was finished.

Mitch played this same game with health care and the tax bill.  He can make all kinds of promises to his members in order to get them on board, and then he can completely disregard those promises because he holds all of the power and is beholden to no one.

Also because he is entirely dishonourable and takes no account of his oath of office or obligation to uphold the Constitution if it gets in the way of his exercising power for his own purposes.

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2978
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #956 on: October 02, 2018, 09:14:11 AM »
I think the drinking and the lying about drinking are huge problems.  I say this as a reformed ex-drunk.

As a Kavanaugh partisian (just getting that out there) I would like to know if that drinking has continued into adult age? Or are we r still talking about college boy stuff? My question is not rhetorical, it is sincere even if my stance is  not entirely objective.

Agreed that any lying if it actually happened is bad, not sure he actually lied tho as there are degerees of drinking, drunkenness and we dont even have to parse those discussions as carefully as we had to when determing what “is” is.


We had one recent reformed alcohoic in the
White House  who ya,ll couldn't stand back  then, I bet you would much prefer him over the current occupant.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #957 on: October 02, 2018, 09:23:46 AM »
I think the drinking and the lying about drinking are huge problems.  I say this as a reformed ex-drunk.

As a Kavanaugh partisian (just getting that out there) I would like to know if that drinking has continued into adult age? Or are we r still talking about college boy stuff? My question is not rhetorical, it is sincere even if my stance is  not entirely objective.

Agreed that any lying if it actually happened is bad, not sure he actually lied tho as there are degerees of drinking, drunkenness and we dont even have to parse those discussions as carefully as we had to when determing what “is” is.


We had one recent reformed alcohoic in the
White House  who ya,ll couldn't stand back  then, I bet you would much prefer him over the current occupant.

Is current drinking disqualifying for you?
Also, I suspect your comments were about George W Bush - I don't think people's opposition to him were based on his drinking and drug use in college, just as few are pointing towards drinking in highschool as sufficient to vote against Kavanaugh in and of itself (misrepresentation today and lying under oath seem far more relevant charges).

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #958 on: October 02, 2018, 09:28:23 AM »
I really don't care that Kavanaugh drank underage (note- he was NOT 18 when the party in question happened), or that he drank excessively in college.

I care that he has lied repeatedly under oath.  I care that he does not show a temperament to be non-partisan and thoughtful.

And, if true, I care that he has sexually assaulted multiple women.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #959 on: October 02, 2018, 09:33:20 AM »
I think the drinking and the lying about drinking are huge problems.  I say this as a reformed ex-drunk.

As a Kavanaugh partisian (just getting that out there) I would like to know if that drinking has continued into adult age? Or are we r still talking about college boy stuff? My question is not rhetorical, it is sincere even if my stance is  not entirely objective.

Agreed that any lying if it actually happened is bad, not sure he actually lied tho as there are degerees of drinking, drunkenness and we dont even have to parse those discussions as carefully as we had to when determing what “is” is.


We had one recent reformed alcohoic in the
White House  who ya,ll couldn't stand back  then, I bet you would much prefer him over the current occupant.

The refusal to answer questions about his current drinking (beyond saying the he likes beer) are really the primary concern related to alcohol.  I think you'll find few people who would say that getting drunk as a teenager should prohibit Kavenaugh from being a supreme court justice, just as few people who thought that GW Bush was a terrible president will point to his former alcoholism as the reason.  Kavenaugh answered that he had never been blackout drunk when directly questioned about it ("No . . . have you?"), so we will see what the FBI investigation reveals regarding the veracity of this statement.

Kavenaugh's actions related to sexual assault while drinking as a teenager are certainly under scrutiny though, as they should be.

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2978
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #960 on: October 02, 2018, 09:35:12 AM »
I think the drinking and the lying about drinking are huge problems.  I say this as a reformed ex-drunk.

As a Kavanaugh partisian (just getting that out there) I would like to know if that drinking has continued into adult age? Or are we r still talking about college boy stuff? My question is not rhetorical, it is sincere even if my stance is  not entirely objective.

Agreed that any lying if it actually happened is bad, not sure he actually lied tho as there are degerees of drinking, drunkenness and we dont even have to parse those discussions as carefully as we had to when determing what “is” is.


We had one recent reformed alcohoic in the
White House  who ya,ll couldn't stand back  then, I bet you would much prefer him over the current occupant.

Is current drinking disqualifying for you?
Also, I suspect your comments were about George W Bush - I don't think people's opposition to him were based on his drinking and drug use in college, just as few are pointing towards drinking in highschool as sufficient to vote against Kavanaugh in and of itself (misrepresentation today and lying under oath seem far more relevant charges).

Drinking alcohol as an adult is not disqualifying. Full blown alcoholic in denial, yes, disqualifying.

Denying black outs doesnt  seem to me to be lying. I think the boys did some pretty heavy drinking, and often. Likely they thought they were more in control than they actually were.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 09:43:52 AM by iris lily »

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2978
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #961 on: October 02, 2018, 09:40:20 AM »
I think the drinking and the lying about drinking are huge problems.  I say this as a reformed ex-drunk.

As a Kavanaugh partisian (just getting that out there) I would like to know if that drinking has continued into adult age? Or are we r still talking about college boy stuff? My question is not rhetorical, it is sincere even if my stance is  not entirely objective.

Agreed that any lying if it actually happened is bad, not sure he actually lied tho as there are degerees of drinking, drunkenness and we dont even have to parse those discussions as carefully as we had to when determing what “is” is.


We had one recent reformed alcohoic in the
White House  who ya,ll couldn't stand back  then, I bet you would much prefer him over the current occupant.

The refusal to answer questions about his current drinking (beyond saying the he likes beer) are really the primary concern related to alcohol...

You know, this is the first post in any forum I have seen that suggests his current drinking is the real issue. I honestly have not heard that is a concern. So, that is interesting and I have scanned quite a few discussion sites without ever hearing this.

Who else here is truly focused, when it comes to the drinking issue, on his current drinking? Do you think he has a drinking problem, and if so, why?

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #962 on: October 02, 2018, 09:42:34 AM »
I think the drinking and the lying about drinking are huge problems.  I say this as a reformed ex-drunk.

As a Kavanaugh partisian (just getting that out there) I would like to know if that drinking has continued into adult age? Or are we r still talking about college boy stuff? My question is not rhetorical, it is sincere even if my stance is  not entirely objective.

Agreed that any lying if it actually happened is bad, not sure he actually lied tho as there are degerees of drinking, drunkenness and we dont even have to parse those discussions as carefully as we had to when determing what “is” is.


We had one recent reformed alcohoic in the
White House  who ya,ll couldn't stand back  then, I bet you would much prefer him over the current occupant.

Is current drinking disqualifying for you?
Also, I suspect your comments were about George W Bush - I don't think people's opposition to him were based on his drinking and drug use in college, just as few are pointing towards drinking in highschool as sufficient to vote against Kavanaugh in and of itself (misrepresentation today and lying under oath seem far more relevant charges).

Drinking alcohol as an adult is not disqualifying. Full blown alcoholic in denial, yes, disqualifying.

Denying back outs doesnt  seem to me to be lying.

Denying black outs when contemporaries are saying that's bullshit seems to be lying.

When asked how much he drank, he seemed to say he was just at a legal limit on a chart- so his excessive drinking was 2-3 beers? Uh, no.

He evaded more questions than he answered.

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2978
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #963 on: October 02, 2018, 09:42:36 AM »
I really don't care that Kavanaugh drank underage (note- he was NOT 18 when the party in question happened), or that he drank excessively in college.

I care that he has lied repeatedly under oath.  I care that he does not show a temperament to be non-partisan and thoughtful.

And, if true, I care that he has sexually assaulted multiple women.

I dont agree with anything 100% and as such, I agree with most of this to some extent. That doesnt mean that I do not, in the end, support
Kavanaugh’s nomination,  but these are areasa of concern for me.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 08:40:58 PM by iris lily »

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #964 on: October 02, 2018, 09:45:29 AM »
I think the drinking and the lying about drinking are huge problems.  I say this as a reformed ex-drunk.

As a Kavanaugh partisian (just getting that out there) I would like to know if that drinking has continued into adult age? Or are we r still talking about college boy stuff? My question is not rhetorical, it is sincere even if my stance is  not entirely objective.

Agreed that any lying if it actually happened is bad, not sure he actually lied tho as there are degerees of drinking, drunkenness and we dont even have to parse those discussions as carefully as we had to when determing what “is” is.


We had one recent reformed alcohoic in the
White House  who ya,ll couldn't stand back  then, I bet you would much prefer him over the current occupant.

I'm personally troubled that Brett thinks that the law doesn't apply to him while simultaneously asking us to appoint him to be its arbiter on the highest court of the land. The drinking, now or then, is not the issue.  The issue is the lying about the drinking.  The lying is something he's doing right now.  I mean-we can all agree that he lied about Renate and Devil's Triangle, right?  These are lies that would be understandable if he were merely a loutish 17 year old brought up in front in front of his parents.  BUT, he is an adult lying under oath.  And he can't really pretend he doesn't know better. 

I know that telling the truth will make him look bad, but he doesn't have a choice in the matter.  It's kind of the underpinning of this whole process. Devil's triangle is not a drinking game; it's a crude sex term. It's actually not disqualifying to me that he used crude sex terms as a 17 year old.  It is disqualifying that, as an adult, he thinks that the rules that apply to everyone else do not apply to him, and that he should get away with lying under oath because telling the truth makes him look bad.  We don't let criminals get away with that.  Brett-just say that you thought Renate was the village bicycle.  Hell-Trump will probably personally murder a few senators to push the confirmation through he'd be so impressed.

 Iris-are you OK with someone who lies under oath in front of the whole country being on the Supreme Court?  How many lies is OK?  Is it OK to lie about drinking while under oath?  Is there a list of acceptable topics to lie about while under oath? 

Also, it figures that this asshole would get into a bar fight over UB40.  What a tool.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #965 on: October 02, 2018, 09:46:18 AM »
As a Kavanaugh partisian (just getting that out there) I would like to know if that drinking has continued into adult age? Or are we r still talking about college boy stuff?

He's on record as saying "I liked beer.  I still like beer" so I think we can safely assume he is not a reformed drunk. 

The most recent allegation of sexual assault while drinking (that I know of) was in 1998.  That's 16 years after the first allegation, and he was already a judge. 

But by most accounts, Kavanaugh has mostly turned his life around from his days of getting lit, starting bar fights, and making the Devil's Triangles with unconscious freshman girls.  Presumably he treats his wife and daughters with more respect than he previously showed Christine Ford, Julie Swetnick, Deborah Ramirez, or Renate Dolphin.

In today's news, it looks like Kavanaugh tried the equivalent of witness tampering by calling some of his old friends about the penis-in-face episode before the story broke on September 23rd, and then lied under oath when he said he first heard of the accusation when the press broke the story.  Brett, don't you know that people can save your text messages and then give them to the FBI?  Why do you insist on lying about things that are so easily disproven?

Quote
Agreed that any lying if it actually happened is bad, not sure he actually lied tho

Oh he definitely lied.  According to his own calendar, he lied under oath about ever attending any social events with Ford and the other people she reports were there (see the July 1st entry).  According to his classmates he lied under oath about the yearbook mentions of ralphing at beach weak being about spicy food, not alcohol consumption.  He lied about the character "Bart O'Kavanaugh" in Judge's book being about someone else, not him.  He lied when he said witnesses refuted Ford's testimony, when in fact they said they did not remember this specific party.  He lied under oath about the timing of his accusations, which seems ridiculous because they were all made publicly, and about Feinstein's handling of the information, which appears to be in accordance with the victim's wishes.  He lied under oath about the proximity of his school to Ford's school and the country club, facts easily established with any map of Bethesda.  And now we've learned that he lied under oath about not having any memory of the time he shoved his exposed penis in a woman's face, thinking it was a joke, causing her to inadvertently touch it as she tried to escape his floppy dong.  (edit:  I do not know for a fact that his dong was floppy at the time.)

And in part because he has so obviously lied about so many of these things, it sure looks like he lied about sexually assaulting Christine Ford.  If he wanted us to think his denials credible, he probably shouldn't have lied so much about everything else.

The man can't seem to tell the truth about anything, for some unknown reason.  I mean if you're going to lie about stuff, maybe try to pick stuff that some rando on the internet can't refute with two minutes on google maps, or that witnesses can't easily disprove with text messages, or about obvious stuff like "I never drank too much in high school" which 13 separate witnesses from high school and college have now contradicted.  (edit:  Donald Trump, man of unimpeachable personal integrity and a beacon of honesty himself, has volunteered to be a character witness for Brett Kavanaugh, saying he never lied.)

The fact that this liar is even still on anyone's short list of judicial nominees for any position is somewhat amazing.  Why should any defendant who goes before him ever feel compelled to tell the truth under oath after what Kavanaugh has done on national tv?  And yet here we are, about to put him on the Supreme Court, without even reading the FBI report about these lies.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 10:25:19 AM by sol »

pbkmaine

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7860
  • Age: 62
  • Location: The Villages, Florida
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #966 on: October 02, 2018, 09:48:08 AM »
The thing that troubled me first about him, and that still troubles me, is that his numbers don’t add up. He lives beyond his means. That makes him susceptible to all kinds of outside influences.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #967 on: October 02, 2018, 10:13:35 AM »
Constant lying about easily disproved things, sexual assault, coming from a privileged but troubled background . . . It's so strange that Donald Trump and Kavenaugh have formed some sort of bond.

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #968 on: October 02, 2018, 10:22:03 AM »
You know how everything Trump touches turns to shit?  This is another example.  This is turning the sort of nice people who just want Roe overturned and more prayer in school into low-life scoundrels who, when polled, say it's OK to having an attempted rapist on the supreme court.  I hope they enjoyed their time on the high road before they tumbled down. 

Conservatives: you are selling your souls to Trump.  A man who raw-dogged a porn star right after his son was born.  It's not a good bargain (n.b. any bargain with Trump involved is only a good bargain for him, not you).  He gets to be president with a fancy plane and a toy solider army like all big boys want.  You get to have corrupted your moral principles and have shown the world the emptiness beneath your rhetoric, for the low low cost of your self-respect and a generation of voters. 

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 537
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Dallas
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #969 on: October 02, 2018, 10:26:39 AM »
I'm curious what the semi-hostile remark was. "Squi could lift more than you on any Thursday" ?

I couldn't let this pass without enlightening you and others. Kavanaugh and friends had just seen UB40 in concert, and were having a discussion about whether another guy in the bar was the lead singer, Ali Campbell. This man apparently took offense to the stares and asked them to stop. At which point Kavanaugh allegedly (per the police report and an account from one of his friends) either threw a beer or ice at the man. They then grappled (I think I saw one story use the word "embraced"), and then Kavanaugh's friend allegedly smashed a glass into the guy's face or person, cutting his ear. Police were called and filed a report, but there is no record of an arrest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/kavanaugh-bar-fight.html

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2978
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #970 on: October 02, 2018, 11:05:34 AM »
As a Kavanaugh partisian (just getting that out there) I would like to know if that drinking has continued into adult age? Or are we r still talking about college boy stuff?

He's on record as saying "I liked beer.  I still like beer" so I think we can safely assume he is not a reformed drunk. 

The most recent allegation of sexual assault while drinking (that I know of) was in 1998.  That's 16 years after the first allegation, and he was already a judge. 

But by most accounts, Kavanaugh has mostly turned his life around from his days of getting lit, starting bar fights, and making the Devil's Triangles with unconscious freshman girls.  Presumably he treats his wife and daughters with more respect than he previously showed Christine Ford, Julie Swetnick, Deborah Ramirez, or Renate Dolphin.

In today's news, it looks like Kavanaugh tried the equivalent of witness tampering by calling some of his old friends about the penis-in-face episode before the story broke on September 23rd, and then lied under oath when he said he first heard of the accusation when the press broke the story.  Brett, don't you know that people can save your text messages and then give them to the FBI?  Why do you insist on lying about things that are so easily disproven?

Quote
Agreed that any lying if it actually happened is bad, not sure he actually lied tho

Oh he definitely lied.  According to his own calendar, he lied under oath about ever attending any social events with Ford and the other people she reports were there (see the July 1st entry).  According to his classmates he lied under oath about the yearbook mentions of ralphing at beach weak being about spicy food, not alcohol consumption.  He lied about the character "Bart O'Kavanaugh" in Judge's book being about someone else, not him.  He lied when he said witnesses refuted Ford's testimony, when in fact they said they did not remember this specific party.  He lied under oath about the timing of his accusations, which seems ridiculous because they were all made publicly, and about Feinstein's handling of the information, which appears to be in accordance with the victim's wishes.  He lied under oath about the proximity of his school to Ford's school and the country club, facts easily established with any map of Bethesda.  And now we've learned that he lied under oath about not having any memory of the time he shoved his exposed penis in a woman's face, thinking it was a joke, causing her to inadvertently touch it as she tried to escape his floppy dong.  (edit:  I do not know for a fact that his dong was floppy at the time.)


And in part because he has so obviously lied about so many of these things, it sure looks like he lied about sexually assaulting Christine Ford.  If he wanted us to think his denials credible, he probably shouldn't have lied so much about everything else.

The man can't seem to tell the truth about anything, for some unknown reason.  I mean if you're going to lie about stuff, maybe try to pick stuff that some rando on the internet can't refute with two minutes on google maps, or that witnesses can't easily disprove with text messages, or about obvious stuff like "I never drank too much in high school" which 13 separate witnesses from high school and college have now contradicted.  (edit:  Donald Trump, man of unimpeachable personal integrity and a beacon of honesty himself, has volunteered to be a character witness for Brett Kavanaugh, saying he never lied.)

The fact that this liar is even still on anyone's short list of judicial nominees for any position is somewhat amazing.  Why should any defendant who goes before him ever feel compelled to tell the truth under oath after what Kavanaugh has done on national tv?  And yet here we are, about to put him on the Supreme Court, without even reading the FBI report about these lies.

To the bolded:

I think it likely that if I listened to the entire testimony in context of the things that you named, I would come up with a different conclusion than “he lied.”  That is why I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony and refurting them. I don’t remember hearing any of these but then I was listening to it on the radio, blaring outdoorswhile we did garden work all day. I missed much of Ford’s speech altho heard much of the questioning. I heard most of his initial speech, and missed most of the questioning of him.

I did entirely miss his angry face since I was getting audio, not tv, but I thought the audio version showed righteous indignation, not entirely inappropriate in this situation. i would rather see calm and cool deliverence of facts, though. But then I suppose he would be accused of bring slick and practiced if that was his demeanor.


« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 11:14:24 AM by iris lily »

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #971 on: October 02, 2018, 11:28:07 AM »
Iris-What are the rules to Devil's Triangle?

Whitehouse asked what "Devil's triangle" referred to, and Kavanaugh replied that it was a drinking game with three glasses in a triangle played in a similar fashion to quarters.

Do you think Brett Kavanaugh is lying about a Devil's Triangle or is the rest of the pre-2018 internet lying?  There are no pre-September 2018 references to a Devil's Triangle drinking game.  However, there are several references to a sexual practice.

How about what a Renate Alumnus is?

"That yearbook reference was clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us…It was not related to sex."

If several member of the football team had printed in the yearbook that they were "Iris Lily Alumnus", would you have been flattered at this sign of respect that is not about sex?  How about if several members of the football team had written that about your daughter?  And then, decades later, testified under oath about how affectionate and respectful their gesture was?   Would you have considered that a lie or just the gosh-darn-honest truth?

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3743
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #972 on: October 02, 2018, 11:39:19 AM »
I think it likely that if I listened to the entire testimony in context of the things that you named, I would come up with a different conclusion than “he lied.” 

I'd be interesting in the "different conclusion" you can come up with for the following -

Ford: "One evening that summer, after a day of diving at the club, I attended a small gathering at a house in the Bethesda area. There were four boys I remember specifically being there: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, a boy named P.J., and one other boy whose name I cannot recall. I also remember my friend Leland attending." "When I got to the small gathering, people were drinking beer in a small living room/family room-type area on the first floor of the house."

Kavanaugh: "I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation."

Kavanaugh's calendar, 1 July 1982 "Go to Timmy's for skis [beers] with Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi".

I mean, in what sense is that not a small gathering at a house in Bethesda with Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, PJ and another boy drinking beer?
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 11:44:26 AM by former player »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #973 on: October 02, 2018, 11:44:00 AM »
I think it likely that if I listened to the entire testimony in context of the things that you named, I would come up with a different conclusion than “he lied.”  That is why I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony and refurting them.

With respect, I don't entirely understand this thought process.

You think that you would come to a different conclusion if you heard what had been said in the testimony in context . . . so you're not going to go back and listen to things in context?

I'm not the smartest person in the world, but often I need to listen to a complicated story or legal case multiple times before I can keep every fact straight.  You appear to be saying that you feel a certain way and therefore are not going to check the evidence because you would rather trust your feelings.  That's not a very defensible position to take.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #974 on: October 02, 2018, 11:44:34 AM »
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?

I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

oldtoyota

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3059
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #975 on: October 02, 2018, 11:49:05 AM »
I think the drinking and the lying about drinking are huge problems.  I say this as a reformed ex-drunk.

As a Kavanaugh partisian (just getting that out there) I would like to know if that drinking has continued into adult age? Or are we r still talking about college boy stuff? My question is not rhetorical, it is sincere even if my stance is  not entirely objective.

Agreed that any lying if it actually happened is bad, not sure he actually lied tho as there are degerees of drinking, drunkenness and we dont even have to parse those discussions as carefully as we had to when determing what “is” is.


We had one recent reformed alcohoic in the
White House  who ya,ll couldn't stand back  then, I bet you would much prefer him over the current occupant.

How do you define "college boy stuff"?

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #976 on: October 02, 2018, 11:53:47 AM »
Renate has said she has not had sex with any of the men who claimed "alumnus". 

Not to say that isn't what they were intending it to appear as though.

PDXTabs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #977 on: October 02, 2018, 12:01:16 PM »
You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

It's the ultimate short-termism combined with party over country. Where did the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower go?

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

I'm really surprised that McConnell isn't more concerned about the long term health of the party. I really thought that he would be the adult in the room. Once upon a time I would even vote Republican part of the time, no more.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #978 on: October 02, 2018, 12:12:00 PM »
Appropros of nothing I wanted to post Garland's yearbook. I just wish that no matter what the side of the aisle one is on, one would want to choose someone for the supreme court, who was known for and did their job with distinction, versus picking someone with minimal acceptable standards who is a partisan shoo-in.  I think everyone in the US regardless of political leanings would be better served. Serving on the Supreme Court is an honor and there should be a high bar.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #979 on: October 02, 2018, 12:16:10 PM »
I'm pretty sure that those are all just drinking games.  :P

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #980 on: October 02, 2018, 12:21:08 PM »
I'm pretty sure that those are all just drinking games.  :P

Except the White Certificate. That's clearly from the KKK.



Samuel

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 221
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #981 on: October 02, 2018, 12:21:42 PM »
Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

One can only hope. I guess Republicans think failing to seat Kavanaugh would cost them more in the midterms. Or perhaps they're just more fixated on countering what they consider a dirty political maneuver by Democrats than actually assessing the fitness of the person or the electoral ramifications of plowing ahead.

It is somewhat baffling to see such a undistinguished candidate (when compared to the others on the published "under consideration" list) being fought for so maniacally as more and more serious flaws are revealed. It's clear why Trump would favor him (his abnormally expansive views on executive power) but what exactly do Senate Republicans see in Kavanaugh that they wouldn't find in any of the other conservatives on the short list?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #982 on: October 02, 2018, 12:27:11 PM »
I guess Republicans think failing to seat Kavanaugh would cost them more in the midterms.

Or have learned from history that there are no electoral consequences for playing dirty pool.

Quote
what exactly do Senate Republicans see in Kavanaugh that they wouldn't find in any of the other conservatives on the short list?

In the candidate?  I doubt they see much at all.  But in the situation, they see an opportunity to flex on the democrats.  To exercise their total and complete power to do whatever the hell they want, totally unopposed, just because they can and because it makes 70% of the country cry.  They're Eric Cartman.

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2978
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #983 on: October 02, 2018, 12:31:10 PM »
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?


I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

To the bolded:

My time has value. I am old and have had enough experience to know that you and i can listen to the same tv broadcast and draw different conclusions. That is likely what would happen about each incident of “lying” you point out. That’ why I wont spend any more time on it.

As it is,
I spent the time noted above and came to conclusions noted above.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 01:59:00 PM by iris lily »

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
  • Age: 33
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #984 on: October 02, 2018, 12:47:29 PM »
what exactly do Senate Republicans see in Kavanaugh that they wouldn't find in any of the other conservatives on the short list?

In the candidate?  I doubt they see much at all.  But in the situation, they see an opportunity to flex on the democrats.  To exercise their total and complete power to do whatever the hell they want, totally unopposed, just because they can and because it makes 70% of the country cry.  They're Eric Cartman.

No it's not that, Senate Republicans just know that complete subservience to Trump is what Republican Voters want. They're not stupid, they poll their base and keep up on the issues. Trump has something like an 87% approval rating among Republicans, constantly. Look at how Republicans like McCain or Flake who dare to cross Trump are instantly demonized.

The Republican party is now the Party of Trump, wholly and completely. Whether that changes later I have no idea, but the Republican Senators are clinging for dear life to the Trump train and terrified of crossing him. Kavanaugh is Trump's nominee, and voting against him would be considered intra-party treason by an enormous percentage of Republican voters.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 12:50:16 PM by sherr »

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #985 on: October 02, 2018, 12:53:46 PM »
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?


I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

To the bolded:

My time has value. I am old and have had enough experience to know that you and i can listen to the same tv broad ast ast and draw different conclusions. That is likely what would happene abouit each incident of “lying” you point out. That,s why I wont spend any more time on it.

As it is,
I spent the time noted above and came to conclusions noted above.

So you care enough to peruse multiple discussion boards and add your opinion to the discussion here, but not enough to view the material in question?

There is at least one point that is a provable lie, he stated that three witnesses have "refuted" he ever attacked Ford. That's not true, they said they were not aware of the attack. Doesn't that mean it's a lie?

And before you bring it up, Kavanaugh is a judge. He clearly knows the difference between failing to confirm something and refuting it. Even if he misspoke he could have clarified, he did not.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
  • Age: 33
  • Location: North Carolina

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1526
  • Location: MA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #987 on: October 02, 2018, 01:16:21 PM »
Quote
And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?

I think this article neatly answers that question.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/02/brett-kavanaugh-lying-politics-220812

It simply doesn't matter in sight of the big picture or "higher truth'.  The higher truth that most of these people believe in (or have been convinced of) is that the democrats/liberals are the bigger danger to society and that if they have their way, it will be hell on earth.

A lady may have been sexually assaulted as a teen, and the guy might be lying about being a drunk or womanizer, but the idea of the democrats winning this one is WAY more upsetting emotionally to them.  The idea is to crush the liberals so much and demoralize them to the point that they don't try to fight back.  They think that the only way to win against an opponent so evil is to fight dirty.  Many of them also believe that liberals are literally MURDERING BABIES, and this guy might be a big step in making that illegal.  If you think your opponents are MURDERING BABIES, then you will do anything, including supporting a potential sexual assaulter, in order to stop that asap. 

The end justifies the means.  It's pretty much that simple. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #988 on: October 02, 2018, 01:20:24 PM »
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?


I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

To the bolded:

My time has value. I am old and have had enough experience to know that you and i can listen to the same tv broad ast ast and draw different conclusions. That is likely what would happene abouit each incident of “lying” you point out. That,s why I wont spend any more time on it.

As it is,
I spent the time noted above and came to conclusions noted above.

Despite what the Trump administration would have you believe, objective truth exists.  Feelings are not facts.  You are free to come up with whatever conclusions you want to, but if they conflict with objective truth others are free to point out that you are perpetuating lies.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #989 on: October 02, 2018, 01:32:41 PM »
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?


I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

To the bolded:

My time has value. I am old and have had enough experience to know that you and i can listen to the same tv broad ast ast and draw different conclusions. That is likely what would happene abouit each incident of “lying” you point out. That,s why I wont spend any more time on it.

As it is,
I spent the time noted above and came to conclusions noted above.

So you care enough to peruse multiple discussion boards and add your opinion to the discussion here, but not enough to view the material in question?

There is at least one point that is a provable lie, he stated that three witnesses have "refuted" he ever attacked Ford. That's not true, they said they were not aware of the attack. Doesn't that mean it's a lie?

And before you bring it up, Kavanaugh is a judge. He clearly knows the difference between failing to confirm something and refuting it. Even if he misspoke he could have clarified, he did not.

This is the problem with each side.  Refuting or failing to confirm end up with the same result.  She said the witnesses were there and each one denied it.  Yet, you are holding a class in semantics and trying to draw a conclusion of lying based on such.

Ridiculous.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #990 on: October 02, 2018, 01:38:11 PM »
This is the problem with each side.  Refuting or failing to confirm end up with the same result.  She said the witnesses were there and each one denied it.  Yet, you are holding a class in semantics and trying to draw a conclusion of lying based on such.

Ridiculous.
To be fair, the official statements that I've seen have all varying shades of "I have no recollection".  While its hard to prove a negative, it's equally hard to say whether someone is lying when the can't speak to the specific circumstances (understandably, 36 years later). 
'
It seems pretty well substantiated that Ford and Kavanaugh did run in the same social circles, so it would seem equally odd for them to have never been at the same social function.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #991 on: October 02, 2018, 01:44:00 PM »
This is the problem with each side.  Refuting or failing to confirm end up with the same result.  She said the witnesses were there and each one denied it.  Yet, you are holding a class in semantics and trying to draw a conclusion of lying based on such.

Ridiculous.

What do you mean by this?

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #992 on: October 02, 2018, 01:46:58 PM »
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?


I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

To the bolded:

My time has value. I am old and have had enough experience to know that you and i can listen to the same tv broad ast ast and draw different conclusions. That is likely what would happene abouit each incident of “lying” you point out. That,s why I wont spend any more time on it.

As it is,
I spent the time noted above and came to conclusions noted above.

So you care enough to peruse multiple discussion boards and add your opinion to the discussion here, but not enough to view the material in question?

There is at least one point that is a provable lie, he stated that three witnesses have "refuted" he ever attacked Ford. That's not true, they said they were not aware of the attack. Doesn't that mean it's a lie?

And before you bring it up, Kavanaugh is a judge. He clearly knows the difference between failing to confirm something and refuting it. Even if he misspoke he could have clarified, he did not.

This is the problem with each side.  Refuting or failing to confirm end up with the same result.  She said the witnesses were there and each one denied it.  Yet, you are holding a class in semantics and trying to draw a conclusion of lying based on such.

Ridiculous.

None of the witnesses said they were not there.  They said they did not recall, or were unaware of such an occasion.

I can refute with absolute certainty that I was not in Alaska on December 2, 1986.  I could not tell you that I wasn't in HEB in Austin Texas on that date; I could only say I don't recall being there.

One is refuting, the other is failing to confirming.
Legally, this is a BIG difference, not semantics.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5017
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #993 on: October 02, 2018, 01:47:50 PM »
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?


I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

To the bolded:

My time has value. I am old and have had enough experience to know that you and i can listen to the same tv broad ast ast and draw different conclusions. That is likely what would happene abouit each incident of “lying” you point out. That,s why I wont spend any more time on it.

As it is,
I spent the time noted above and came to conclusions noted above.

So you care enough to peruse multiple discussion boards and add your opinion to the discussion here, but not enough to view the material in question?

There is at least one point that is a provable lie, he stated that three witnesses have "refuted" he ever attacked Ford. That's not true, they said they were not aware of the attack. Doesn't that mean it's a lie?

And before you bring it up, Kavanaugh is a judge. He clearly knows the difference between failing to confirm something and refuting it. Even if he misspoke he could have clarified, he did not.

This is the problem with each side.  Refuting or failing to confirm end up with the same result.  She said the witnesses were there and each one denied it. Yet, you are holding a class in semantics and trying to draw a conclusion of lying based on such.

Ridiculous.

"Holding a class on semantics" appears to be necessary because you don't appear to get it.

Words mean things.  If you're going to say "it's just semantics", a fucking Supreme Court Justice nomination is not the place for that argument.  Words matter.  Specific phrasing and nuance of language matters.  There's a reason that court opinions are long -- it's because "it's just semantics" is not permitted as a way of rationalizing an opinion.

Refuting and failing to confirm do not end up with the same result.  "I don't remember if I had breakfast yesterday" vs "I did not eat eggs for breakfast yesterday" are two very, very different things. 

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #994 on: October 02, 2018, 02:04:31 PM »
Renate alumnus.  If you need a date and it's getting late.  Nothing to do with sex.  Affection. Clumsy.

No thoughts on this?  Is it too distasteful to engage with this obvious Kavanaugh lie? Imagine how Renate felt listening to him lie to the country knowing that the whole country knew full well they meant she was the village bicycle.  This one's not so easy to squirm away from.

Kavanaugh was a dick.  It's recoverable.  But then he lied about it.  No Republican seems to care.  We are witnessing in real time the fingers in ears lalalalala.

turketron

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
  • Age: 32
  • Location: WI
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #995 on: October 02, 2018, 02:05:08 PM »
"Holding a class on semantics" appears to be necessary because you don't appear to get it.

Words mean things.  If you're going to say "it's just semantics", a fucking Supreme Court Justice nomination is not the place for that argument.  Words matter.  Specific phrasing and nuance of language matters.  There's a reason that court opinions are long -- it's because "it's just semantics" is not permitted as a way of rationalizing an opinion.

Refuting and failing to confirm do not end up with the same result.  "I don't remember if I had breakfast yesterday" vs "I did not eat eggs for breakfast yesterday" are two very, very different things.

Case in point- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/oxford-comma-lawsuit.html

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2978
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #996 on: October 02, 2018, 02:42:08 PM »
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?


I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

To the bolded:

My time has value. I am old and have had enough experience to know that you and i can listen to the same tv broad ast ast and draw different conclusions. That is likely what would happene abouit each incident of “lying” you point out. That,s why I wont spend any more time on it.

As it is,
I spent the time noted above and came to conclusions noted above.

So you care enough to peruse multiple discussion boards and add your opinion to the discussion here, but not enough to view the material in question?

There is at least one point that is a provable lie, he stated that three witnesses have "refuted" he ever attacked Ford. That's not true, they said they were not aware of the attack. Doesn't that mean it's a lie?

And before you bring it up, Kavanaugh is a judge. He clearly knows the difference between failing to confirm something and refuting it. Even if he misspoke he could have clarified, he did not.

This is the problem with each side.  Refuting or failing to confirm end up with the same result.  She said the witnesses were there and each one denied it.  Yet, you are holding a class in semantics and trying to draw a conclusion of lying based on such.

Ridiculous.

None of the witnesses said they were not there.  They said they did not recall, or were unaware of such an occasion.

I can refute with absolute certainty that I was not in Alaska on December 2, 1986.  I could not tell you that I wasn't in HEB in Austin Texas on that date; I could only say I don't recall being there.

One is refuting, the other is failing to confirming.
Legally, this is a BIG difference, not semantics.

To the bolded:

Witnesses did not corraborate Dr. Ford’s testimony, that is the main point.

What Kavanaugh said about what the witnesses said and how they said it, and how HE said it—are of far less interest to me than to you and others here.




former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3743
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #997 on: October 02, 2018, 02:44:53 PM »
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?


I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

To the bolded:

My time has value. I am old and have had enough experience to know that you and i can listen to the same tv broadcast and draw different conclusions. That is likely what would happen about each incident of “lying” you point out. That’ why I wont spend any more time on it.

As it is,
I spent the time noted above and came to conclusions noted above.


In order that you wouldn't have to spend more than two minutes checking one instance of lying, in my previous post I set out for you one example of a single definite statement by Kavanaugh that is comprehensively refuted by Kavanaugh's own calendar.  It would have been quicker for you to read that example than write your post saying why you weren't going to bother.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #998 on: October 02, 2018, 02:53:21 PM »
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?


I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

To the bolded:

My time has value. I am old and have had enough experience to know that you and i can listen to the same tv broad ast ast and draw different conclusions. That is likely what would happene abouit each incident of “lying” you point out. That,s why I wont spend any more time on it.

As it is,
I spent the time noted above and came to conclusions noted above.

So you care enough to peruse multiple discussion boards and add your opinion to the discussion here, but not enough to view the material in question?

There is at least one point that is a provable lie, he stated that three witnesses have "refuted" he ever attacked Ford. That's not true, they said they were not aware of the attack. Doesn't that mean it's a lie?

And before you bring it up, Kavanaugh is a judge. He clearly knows the difference between failing to confirm something and refuting it. Even if he misspoke he could have clarified, he did not.

This is the problem with each side.  Refuting or failing to confirm end up with the same result.  She said the witnesses were there and each one denied it.  Yet, you are holding a class in semantics and trying to draw a conclusion of lying based on such.

Ridiculous.

None of the witnesses said they were not there.  They said they did not recall, or were unaware of such an occasion.

I can refute with absolute certainty that I was not in Alaska on December 2, 1986.  I could not tell you that I wasn't in HEB in Austin Texas on that date; I could only say I don't recall being there.

One is refuting, the other is failing to confirming.
Legally, this is a BIG difference, not semantics.

To the bolded:

Witnesses did not corraborate Dr. Ford’s testimony, that is the main point.

What Kavanaugh said about what the witnesses said and how they said it, and how HE said it—are of far less interest to me than to you and others here.

But should be of interest to anyone hearing the testimony.  Kavanaugh is a federal judge. He very much knows the difference between these phrases.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #999 on: October 02, 2018, 02:54:33 PM »
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?


I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

To the bolded:

My time has value. I am old and have had enough experience to know that you and i can listen to the same tv broad ast ast and draw different conclusions. That is likely what would happene abouit each incident of “lying” you point out. That,s why I wont spend any more time on it.

As it is,
I spent the time noted above and came to conclusions noted above.

So you care enough to peruse multiple discussion boards and add your opinion to the discussion here, but not enough to view the material in question?

There is at least one point that is a provable lie, he stated that three witnesses have "refuted" he ever attacked Ford. That's not true, they said they were not aware of the attack. Doesn't that mean it's a lie?

And before you bring it up, Kavanaugh is a judge. He clearly knows the difference between failing to confirm something and refuting it. Even if he misspoke he could have clarified, he did not.

This is the problem with each side.  Refuting or failing to confirm end up with the same result.  She said the witnesses were there and each one denied it.  Yet, you are holding a class in semantics and trying to draw a conclusion of lying based on such.

Ridiculous.

None of the witnesses said they were not there.  They said they did not recall, or were unaware of such an occasion.

I can refute with absolute certainty that I was not in Alaska on December 2, 1986.  I could not tell you that I wasn't in HEB in Austin Texas on that date; I could only say I don't recall being there.

One is refuting, the other is failing to confirming.
Legally, this is a BIG difference, not semantics.

To the bolded:

Witnesses did not corraborate Dr. Ford’s testimony, that is the main point.

What Kavanaugh said about what the witnesses said and how they said it, and how HE said it—are of far less interest to me than to you and others here.

Witness did not corroborate Dr. Ford's testimony. Because they had no memory of it. (Though Mark Judge just talked to the FBI. There is the possibility that his story could change.)

Witnesses to events referenced in Kavanaugh's testimony have outright denied his statements, and have said that he is lying.

That is of far more interest to me.