On October 01 2018 00:44 LegalLord wrote: They look at statistical trends without even understanding why they happen. Most laymen could tell you quite easily why exactly it is that Hillary isn't getting some sort of popularity boost right now, but these people are for some reason blind to what is obvious to everyone else.
It's hard to be properly introspective when you're perpetually living in a media echo chamber.
2 years of non-stop all day every day bombardment of how terrible Trump and his crew are, RUSSIA!, "Facebook ads manipulated you", Stormy Daniels, toad dick, KAVANAUGH and so much more. What do they have to show for it?
While Republicans have become significantly more positive about their party over the past year, Democrats' views of the Republican Party and their own Democratic Party have essentially not changed.
This shows Republicans gaining 5% favorability among women between 2017 and 2018. Democrats give a lot static to the right for refusing reality but they seem just as capable when it suits them politically.
So the Republican women they're supposed to be winning over with the sex scandal spam they aren't and the Democrats that view Republicans favorably mostly haven't budged, other than middle/upper middle class shading slightly towards being more favorable of Republicans.
Rachel Mitchell, the investigative counsel, has given a memorandum to all the Republican senators that hired her on to conduct their portion of the hearing of Ford & Kavanaugh. It isn't so good for Ford's testimony.
It's detailed at why so many look at the gaps in her story and conclude she is not a credible witness/victim. The problem is that nobody really cares if she is or isn't, that's just the current excuse in their stories for why Kavanaugh's nomination must be delayed. Delayed and hopefully never nominated, the seat held open for the next Democratic president.
Graham and Hatch have been hammering the point home the past three days. It's just a political power struggle framed as getting to the bottom of an assault allegation.
On October 02 2018 00:40 Danglars wrote: Rachel Mitchell, the investigative counsel, has given a memorandum to all the Republican senators that hired her on to conduct their portion of the hearing of Ford & Kavanaugh. It isn't so good for Ford's testimony.
It's detailed at why so many look at the gaps in her story and conclude she is not a credible witness/victim. The problem is that nobody really cares if she is or isn't, that's just the current excuse in their stories for why Kavanaugh's nomination must be delayed. Delayed and hopefully never nominated, the seat held open for the next Democratic president.
Graham and Hatch have been hammering the point home the past three days. It's just a political power struggle framed as getting to the bottom of an assault allegation.
Mitchell's report is all the same shit that I have been pointing out for weeks. Anyone with half a brain knew how this was going to turn out on the merits. That the democrats now keep moving the goal posts on the FBI investigation is not a surprise, either. An open-ended FBI investigation into Kavanaugh and his drinking? What a fucking joke. The democrats should be embarrassed. Hopefully in the next few days Flake will grow a spine, and Kavanaugh can be voted in.
On October 01 2018 00:44 LegalLord wrote: They look at statistical trends without even understanding why they happen. Most laymen could tell you quite easily why exactly it is that Hillary isn't getting some sort of popularity boost right now, but these people are for some reason blind to what is obvious to everyone else.
It's hard to be properly introspective when you're perpetually living in a media echo chamber.
2 years of non-stop all day every day bombardment of how terrible Trump and his crew are, RUSSIA!, "Facebook ads manipulated you", Stormy Daniels, toad dick, KAVANAUGH and so much more. What do they have to show for it?
While Republicans have become significantly more positive about their party over the past year, Democrats' views of the Republican Party and their own Democratic Party have essentially not changed.
This shows Republicans gaining 5% favorability among women between 2017 and 2018. Democrats give a lot static to the right for refusing reality but they seem just as capable when it suits them politically.
So the Republican women they're supposed to be winning over with the sex scandal spam they aren't and the Democrats that view Republicans favorably mostly haven't budged, other than middle/upper middle class shading slightly towards being more favorable of Republicans.
Just out of curiosity, are you seeing an up-tick in support for Trump in the black community?
Flake weaseled again in a statement, saying he's a yes vote on Kavanaugh pending the FBI review to allay others' concerns. Mhmm. It's the other people that have concerns, not that you want to play both sides to keep Republican voters happy, yet not chase away people that want an FBI "investigation." He has aspirations of future promotion. He is absolutely the wrong guy at the wrong time to hold those aspirations. He can't rewind the tape to Year 2000 Compassionate Conservatives that do our best to not be evil people pushing granny of a cliff! This era is showing spine when the left goes insane.
The goal posts are moved from the serial rapist to frat boy drinking, with a side of you're not allowed to get mad in hearings. Senate Democrats and media allies are trying to push his aggression and defensiveness about his overdrinking into either proof he lied about blacking out or proof he's unfit 36 years later to ascend the Supreme Court. Americans don't forget how recently he was a serial gang rapist with sworn testimony, and 3 uncorroborated believable women accusing him of crimes.
I'm guessing somebody digs up 3 high school colleagues and puts them on TV before the next vote. They all say he drank so much they assumed he would black out. Feinstein then says we need to delay in case alcoholism is still current and the FBI missed it in 6 background checks.
On October 02 2018 00:40 Danglars wrote: Rachel Mitchell, the investigative counsel, has given a memorandum to all the Republican senators that hired her on to conduct their portion of the hearing of Ford & Kavanaugh. It isn't so good for Ford's testimony.
It's detailed at why so many look at the gaps in her story and conclude she is not a credible witness/victim. The problem is that nobody really cares if she is or isn't, that's just the current excuse in their stories for why Kavanaugh's nomination must be delayed. Delayed and hopefully never nominated, the seat held open for the next Democratic president.
Graham and Hatch have been hammering the point home the past three days. It's just a political power struggle framed as getting to the bottom of an assault allegation.
Mitchell's report is all the same shit that I have been pointing out for weeks. Anyone with half a brain knew how this was going to turn out on the merits. That the democrats now keep moving the goal posts on the FBI investigation is not a surprise, either. An open-ended FBI investigation into Kavanaugh and his drinking? What a fucking joke. The democrats should be embarrassed. Hopefully in the next few days Flake will grow a spine, and Kavanaugh can be voted in.
maybe this is just what the country needs to eliminate frat boys
On October 02 2018 00:40 Danglars wrote: Rachel Mitchell, the investigative counsel, has given a memorandum to all the Republican senators that hired her on to conduct their portion of the hearing of Ford & Kavanaugh. It isn't so good for Ford's testimony.
It's detailed at why so many look at the gaps in her story and conclude she is not a credible witness/victim. The problem is that nobody really cares if she is or isn't, that's just the current excuse in their stories for why Kavanaugh's nomination must be delayed. Delayed and hopefully never nominated, the seat held open for the next Democratic president.
Graham and Hatch have been hammering the point home the past three days. It's just a political power struggle framed as getting to the bottom of an assault allegation.
Mitchell's report is all the same shit that I have been pointing out for weeks. Anyone with half a brain knew how this was going to turn out on the merits. That the democrats now keep moving the goal posts on the FBI investigation is not a surprise, either. An open-ended FBI investigation into Kavanaugh and his drinking? What a fucking joke. The democrats should be embarrassed. Hopefully in the next few days Flake will grow a spine, and Kavanaugh can be voted in.
maybe this is just what the country needs to eliminate frat boys
On October 01 2018 00:44 LegalLord wrote: They look at statistical trends without even understanding why they happen. Most laymen could tell you quite easily why exactly it is that Hillary isn't getting some sort of popularity boost right now, but these people are for some reason blind to what is obvious to everyone else.
It's hard to be properly introspective when you're perpetually living in a media echo chamber.
2 years of non-stop all day every day bombardment of how terrible Trump and his crew are, RUSSIA!, "Facebook ads manipulated you", Stormy Daniels, toad dick, KAVANAUGH and so much more. What do they have to show for it?
While Republicans have become significantly more positive about their party over the past year, Democrats' views of the Republican Party and their own Democratic Party have essentially not changed.
This shows Republicans gaining 5% favorability among women between 2017 and 2018. Democrats give a lot static to the right for refusing reality but they seem just as capable when it suits them politically.
So the Republican women they're supposed to be winning over with the sex scandal spam they aren't and the Democrats that view Republicans favorably mostly haven't budged, other than middle/upper middle class shading slightly towards being more favorable of Republicans.
Just out of curiosity, are you seeing an up-tick in support for Trump in the black community?
No uptick, but virtually none of this Trump stuff ever even comes up. Kanye is probably the center of that and it's basically the same divisions you saw on election day. about 1 out of 10 or less Black people see it for the hustle it is and approve, the other 9 think people like Kanye are selling out for personal benefit and are disgusted.
That's to say the bootstraps argument has always resonated with at least 5-10% of Black communities and they have been convinced that your net worth is a better reflection of your value as a human than the relationships you develop with people.
For them there's little or nothing Trump could do that would be too far. Granted most of them couldn't vote if they wanted to anyway so I wouldn't count on much support. If Trump and this Republican running in Florida were taking care of felony disenfranchisement for stuff like stealing shoes that might actually net them some votes though.
I'd say the biggest thing is that nothing Democrats have been putting out there has changed opinions on Trump or Republicans, other than make Republicans rally to their guy a bit more. Meanwhile nearly half the country has realized neither party is worth voting for.
Democrats biggest mistake from the last two years, and I fully expect this to continue into 2020 is fighting for votes they aren't going to take away from Republicans instead of rallying the millions of people who just need someone/thing to vote for.
On October 02 2018 00:40 Danglars wrote: Rachel Mitchell, the investigative counsel, has given a memorandum to all the Republican senators that hired her on to conduct their portion of the hearing of Ford & Kavanaugh. It isn't so good for Ford's testimony.
It's detailed at why so many look at the gaps in her story and conclude she is not a credible witness/victim. The problem is that nobody really cares if she is or isn't, that's just the current excuse in their stories for why Kavanaugh's nomination must be delayed. Delayed and hopefully never nominated, the seat held open for the next Democratic president.
Graham and Hatch have been hammering the point home the past three days. It's just a political power struggle framed as getting to the bottom of an assault allegation.
Mitchell's report is all the same shit that I have been pointing out for weeks. Anyone with half a brain knew how this was going to turn out on the merits. That the democrats now keep moving the goal posts on the FBI investigation is not a surprise, either. An open-ended FBI investigation into Kavanaugh and his drinking? What a fucking joke. The democrats should be embarrassed. Hopefully in the next few days Flake will grow a spine, and Kavanaugh can be voted in.
maybe this is just what the country needs to eliminate frat boys
On October 02 2018 00:40 Danglars wrote: Rachel Mitchell, the investigative counsel, has given a memorandum to all the Republican senators that hired her on to conduct their portion of the hearing of Ford & Kavanaugh. It isn't so good for Ford's testimony.
It's detailed at why so many look at the gaps in her story and conclude she is not a credible witness/victim. The problem is that nobody really cares if she is or isn't, that's just the current excuse in their stories for why Kavanaugh's nomination must be delayed. Delayed and hopefully never nominated, the seat held open for the next Democratic president.
Graham and Hatch have been hammering the point home the past three days. It's just a political power struggle framed as getting to the bottom of an assault allegation.
Mitchell's report is all the same shit that I have been pointing out for weeks. Anyone with half a brain knew how this was going to turn out on the merits. That the democrats now keep moving the goal posts on the FBI investigation is not a surprise, either. An open-ended FBI investigation into Kavanaugh and his drinking? What a fucking joke. The democrats should be embarrassed. Hopefully in the next few days Flake will grow a spine, and Kavanaugh can be voted in.
Do you have any concern he didn't tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in front of congress?
For instance, him saying under oath that he had no connections to Yale and technically being a legacy student are clearly conflicting. Is it the kinda lie you don't have a problem with your top judges telling or it it the kind of incompetence you're comfortable with that led him to say something untrue? Or is there another explanation without deception or incompetence that explains inconsistencies in his responses to congress and the historical record for you?
On October 02 2018 00:40 Danglars wrote: Rachel Mitchell, the investigative counsel, has given a memorandum to all the Republican senators that hired her on to conduct their portion of the hearing of Ford & Kavanaugh. It isn't so good for Ford's testimony.
It's detailed at why so many look at the gaps in her story and conclude she is not a credible witness/victim. The problem is that nobody really cares if she is or isn't, that's just the current excuse in their stories for why Kavanaugh's nomination must be delayed. Delayed and hopefully never nominated, the seat held open for the next Democratic president.
Graham and Hatch have been hammering the point home the past three days. It's just a political power struggle framed as getting to the bottom of an assault allegation.
Mitchell's report is all the same shit that I have been pointing out for weeks. Anyone with half a brain knew how this was going to turn out on the merits. That the democrats now keep moving the goal posts on the FBI investigation is not a surprise, either. An open-ended FBI investigation into Kavanaugh and his drinking? What a fucking joke. The democrats should be embarrassed. Hopefully in the next few days Flake will grow a spine, and Kavanaugh can be voted in.
Do you have any concern he didn't tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in front of congress?
For instance, him saying under oath that he had no connections to Yale and technically being a legacy student are clearly conflicting. Is it the kinda lie you don't have a problem with your top judges telling or it it the kind of incompetence you're comfortable with that led him to say something untrue? Or is there another explanation without deception or incompetence that explains inconsistencies in his responses to congress and the historical record for you?
Not really. I paid fairly close attention to his testimony, and there was nothing that really set off alarm bells. He may have understated his drinking during his school years, but he probably wasn't asked the right questions such he's at risk of getting in trouble.
What's the Yale thing that he wasn't up front about?
On October 02 2018 00:40 Danglars wrote: Rachel Mitchell, the investigative counsel, has given a memorandum to all the Republican senators that hired her on to conduct their portion of the hearing of Ford & Kavanaugh. It isn't so good for Ford's testimony.
It's detailed at why so many look at the gaps in her story and conclude she is not a credible witness/victim. The problem is that nobody really cares if she is or isn't, that's just the current excuse in their stories for why Kavanaugh's nomination must be delayed. Delayed and hopefully never nominated, the seat held open for the next Democratic president.
Graham and Hatch have been hammering the point home the past three days. It's just a political power struggle framed as getting to the bottom of an assault allegation.
Mitchell's report is all the same shit that I have been pointing out for weeks. Anyone with half a brain knew how this was going to turn out on the merits. That the democrats now keep moving the goal posts on the FBI investigation is not a surprise, either. An open-ended FBI investigation into Kavanaugh and his drinking? What a fucking joke. The democrats should be embarrassed. Hopefully in the next few days Flake will grow a spine, and Kavanaugh can be voted in.
Do you have any concern he didn't tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in front of congress?
For instance, him saying under oath that he had no connections to Yale and technically being a legacy student are clearly conflicting. Is it the kinda lie you don't have a problem with your top judges telling or it it the kind of incompetence you're comfortable with that led him to say something untrue? Or is there another explanation without deception or incompetence that explains inconsistencies in his responses to congress and the historical record for you?
Not really. I paid fairly close attention to his testimony, and there was nothing that really set off alarm bells. He may have understated his drinking during his school years, but he probably wasn't asked the right questions such he's at risk of getting in trouble.
What's the Yale thing that he wasn't up front about?
He said he had no connections to Yale and was actually a legacy.
It's not infrequent that "self-made" men tell mistruths of this sort, it's unclear whether they genuinely believe them or not.
On October 02 2018 00:40 Danglars wrote: Rachel Mitchell, the investigative counsel, has given a memorandum to all the Republican senators that hired her on to conduct their portion of the hearing of Ford & Kavanaugh. It isn't so good for Ford's testimony.
It's detailed at why so many look at the gaps in her story and conclude she is not a credible witness/victim. The problem is that nobody really cares if she is or isn't, that's just the current excuse in their stories for why Kavanaugh's nomination must be delayed. Delayed and hopefully never nominated, the seat held open for the next Democratic president.
Graham and Hatch have been hammering the point home the past three days. It's just a political power struggle framed as getting to the bottom of an assault allegation.
Mitchell's report is all the same shit that I have been pointing out for weeks. Anyone with half a brain knew how this was going to turn out on the merits. That the democrats now keep moving the goal posts on the FBI investigation is not a surprise, either. An open-ended FBI investigation into Kavanaugh and his drinking? What a fucking joke. The democrats should be embarrassed. Hopefully in the next few days Flake will grow a spine, and Kavanaugh can be voted in.
Do you have any concern he didn't tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in front of congress?
For instance, him saying under oath that he had no connections to Yale and technically being a legacy student are clearly conflicting. Is it the kinda lie you don't have a problem with your top judges telling or it it the kind of incompetence you're comfortable with that led him to say something untrue? Or is there another explanation without deception or incompetence that explains inconsistencies in his responses to congress and the historical record for you?
Not really. I paid fairly close attention to his testimony, and there was nothing that really set off alarm bells. He may have understated his drinking during his school years, but he probably wasn't asked the right questions such he's at risk of getting in trouble.
What's the Yale thing that he wasn't up front about?
He said he had no connections to Yale and was actually a legacy.
It's not infrequent that "self-made" men tell mistruths of this sort, it's unclear whether they genuinely believe them or not.
Eh, the guy graduated at the top of his class in undergrad and law school. That doesn't happen without great personal effort and achievement.
On October 02 2018 00:40 Danglars wrote: Rachel Mitchell, the investigative counsel, has given a memorandum to all the Republican senators that hired her on to conduct their portion of the hearing of Ford & Kavanaugh. It isn't so good for Ford's testimony.
It's detailed at why so many look at the gaps in her story and conclude she is not a credible witness/victim. The problem is that nobody really cares if she is or isn't, that's just the current excuse in their stories for why Kavanaugh's nomination must be delayed. Delayed and hopefully never nominated, the seat held open for the next Democratic president.
Graham and Hatch have been hammering the point home the past three days. It's just a political power struggle framed as getting to the bottom of an assault allegation.
Mitchell's report is all the same shit that I have been pointing out for weeks. Anyone with half a brain knew how this was going to turn out on the merits. That the democrats now keep moving the goal posts on the FBI investigation is not a surprise, either. An open-ended FBI investigation into Kavanaugh and his drinking? What a fucking joke. The democrats should be embarrassed. Hopefully in the next few days Flake will grow a spine, and Kavanaugh can be voted in.
Do you have any concern he didn't tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in front of congress?
For instance, him saying under oath that he had no connections to Yale and technically being a legacy student are clearly conflicting. Is it the kinda lie you don't have a problem with your top judges telling or it it the kind of incompetence you're comfortable with that led him to say something untrue? Or is there another explanation without deception or incompetence that explains inconsistencies in his responses to congress and the historical record for you?
Not really. I paid fairly close attention to his testimony, and there was nothing that really set off alarm bells. He may have understated his drinking during his school years, but he probably wasn't asked the right questions such he's at risk of getting in trouble.
What's the Yale thing that he wasn't up front about?
He said he had no connections to Yale and was actually a legacy.
It's not infrequent that "self-made" men tell mistruths of this sort, it's unclear whether they genuinely believe them or not.
Eh, the guy graduated at the top of his class in undergrad and law school. That doesn't happen without great personal effort and achievement.
The question isn't whether he worked hard or not though, it's whether his misstatement is one of deception, incompetence or something else?
On October 02 2018 00:40 Danglars wrote: Rachel Mitchell, the investigative counsel, has given a memorandum to all the Republican senators that hired her on to conduct their portion of the hearing of Ford & Kavanaugh. It isn't so good for Ford's testimony.
It's detailed at why so many look at the gaps in her story and conclude she is not a credible witness/victim. The problem is that nobody really cares if she is or isn't, that's just the current excuse in their stories for why Kavanaugh's nomination must be delayed. Delayed and hopefully never nominated, the seat held open for the next Democratic president.
Graham and Hatch have been hammering the point home the past three days. It's just a political power struggle framed as getting to the bottom of an assault allegation.
Mitchell's report is all the same shit that I have been pointing out for weeks. Anyone with half a brain knew how this was going to turn out on the merits. That the democrats now keep moving the goal posts on the FBI investigation is not a surprise, either. An open-ended FBI investigation into Kavanaugh and his drinking? What a fucking joke. The democrats should be embarrassed. Hopefully in the next few days Flake will grow a spine, and Kavanaugh can be voted in.
Do you have any concern he didn't tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in front of congress?
For instance, him saying under oath that he had no connections to Yale and technically being a legacy student are clearly conflicting. Is it the kinda lie you don't have a problem with your top judges telling or it it the kind of incompetence you're comfortable with that led him to say something untrue? Or is there another explanation without deception or incompetence that explains inconsistencies in his responses to congress and the historical record for you?
Not really. I paid fairly close attention to his testimony, and there was nothing that really set off alarm bells. He may have understated his drinking during his school years, but he probably wasn't asked the right questions such he's at risk of getting in trouble.
What's the Yale thing that he wasn't up front about?
He said he had no connections to Yale and was actually a legacy.
It's not infrequent that "self-made" men tell mistruths of this sort, it's unclear whether they genuinely believe them or not.
Eh, the guy graduated at the top of his class in undergrad and law school. That doesn't happen without great personal effort and achievement.
The question isn't whether he worked hard or not though, it's whether his misstatement is one of deception, incompetence or something else?
On October 02 2018 00:40 Danglars wrote: Rachel Mitchell, the investigative counsel, has given a memorandum to all the Republican senators that hired her on to conduct their portion of the hearing of Ford & Kavanaugh. It isn't so good for Ford's testimony.
It's detailed at why so many look at the gaps in her story and conclude she is not a credible witness/victim. The problem is that nobody really cares if she is or isn't, that's just the current excuse in their stories for why Kavanaugh's nomination must be delayed. Delayed and hopefully never nominated, the seat held open for the next Democratic president.
Graham and Hatch have been hammering the point home the past three days. It's just a political power struggle framed as getting to the bottom of an assault allegation.
Mitchell's report is all the same shit that I have been pointing out for weeks. Anyone with half a brain knew how this was going to turn out on the merits. That the democrats now keep moving the goal posts on the FBI investigation is not a surprise, either. An open-ended FBI investigation into Kavanaugh and his drinking? What a fucking joke. The democrats should be embarrassed. Hopefully in the next few days Flake will grow a spine, and Kavanaugh can be voted in.
Do you have any concern he didn't tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in front of congress?
For instance, him saying under oath that he had no connections to Yale and technically being a legacy student are clearly conflicting. Is it the kinda lie you don't have a problem with your top judges telling or it it the kind of incompetence you're comfortable with that led him to say something untrue? Or is there another explanation without deception or incompetence that explains inconsistencies in his responses to congress and the historical record for you?
Not really. I paid fairly close attention to his testimony, and there was nothing that really set off alarm bells. He may have understated his drinking during his school years, but he probably wasn't asked the right questions such he's at risk of getting in trouble.
What's the Yale thing that he wasn't up front about?
He said he had no connections to Yale and was actually a legacy.
It's not infrequent that "self-made" men tell mistruths of this sort, it's unclear whether they genuinely believe them or not.
Eh, the guy graduated at the top of his class in undergrad and law school. That doesn't happen without great personal effort and achievement.
The question isn't whether he worked hard or not though, it's whether his misstatement is one of deception, incompetence or something else?
I doubt it amounts to deception or incompetence.
If he was arguing a criminal case and he said the person had no connections to Yale, but they were actually legacy you wouldn't consider that a material misrepresentation of the facts?
If it isn't surely you can say what it at least could be otherwise. If you can't even imagine what it is, I'm inclined to go with the more obvious answers.
On October 02 2018 00:40 Danglars wrote: Rachel Mitchell, the investigative counsel, has given a memorandum to all the Republican senators that hired her on to conduct their portion of the hearing of Ford & Kavanaugh. It isn't so good for Ford's testimony.
It's detailed at why so many look at the gaps in her story and conclude she is not a credible witness/victim. The problem is that nobody really cares if she is or isn't, that's just the current excuse in their stories for why Kavanaugh's nomination must be delayed. Delayed and hopefully never nominated, the seat held open for the next Democratic president.
Graham and Hatch have been hammering the point home the past three days. It's just a political power struggle framed as getting to the bottom of an assault allegation.
Mitchell's report is all the same shit that I have been pointing out for weeks. Anyone with half a brain knew how this was going to turn out on the merits. That the democrats now keep moving the goal posts on the FBI investigation is not a surprise, either. An open-ended FBI investigation into Kavanaugh and his drinking? What a fucking joke. The democrats should be embarrassed. Hopefully in the next few days Flake will grow a spine, and Kavanaugh can be voted in.
Do you have any concern he didn't tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in front of congress?
For instance, him saying under oath that he had no connections to Yale and technically being a legacy student are clearly conflicting. Is it the kinda lie you don't have a problem with your top judges telling or it it the kind of incompetence you're comfortable with that led him to say something untrue? Or is there another explanation without deception or incompetence that explains inconsistencies in his responses to congress and the historical record for you?
Not really. I paid fairly close attention to his testimony, and there was nothing that really set off alarm bells. He may have understated his drinking during his school years, but he probably wasn't asked the right questions such he's at risk of getting in trouble.
What's the Yale thing that he wasn't up front about?
He said he had no connections to Yale and was actually a legacy.
It's not infrequent that "self-made" men tell mistruths of this sort, it's unclear whether they genuinely believe them or not.
Eh, the guy graduated at the top of his class in undergrad and law school. That doesn't happen without great personal effort and achievement.
The question isn't whether he worked hard or not though, it's whether his misstatement is one of deception, incompetence or something else?
I doubt it amounts to deception or incompetence.
If he was arguing a criminal case and he said the person had no connections to Yale, but they were actually legacy you wouldn't consider that a material misrepresentation of the facts?
If it isn't surely you can say what it at least could be otherwise. If you can't even imagine what it is, I'm inclined to go with the more obvious answers.
Well, what is a “connection?” If I recall correctly, Kavanaugh was the one who volunteered that he had no connections to Yale. He wasn’t examined on it. Because of this, there is necessarily a subjective element to the statement. If you want to a lock a witness down, you have to define ambiguous terms before getting the witness to commit to an answer.
On October 02 2018 00:40 Danglars wrote: Rachel Mitchell, the investigative counsel, has given a memorandum to all the Republican senators that hired her on to conduct their portion of the hearing of Ford & Kavanaugh. It isn't so good for Ford's testimony.
It's detailed at why so many look at the gaps in her story and conclude she is not a credible witness/victim. The problem is that nobody really cares if she is or isn't, that's just the current excuse in their stories for why Kavanaugh's nomination must be delayed. Delayed and hopefully never nominated, the seat held open for the next Democratic president.
Graham and Hatch have been hammering the point home the past three days. It's just a political power struggle framed as getting to the bottom of an assault allegation.
Mitchell's report is all the same shit that I have been pointing out for weeks. Anyone with half a brain knew how this was going to turn out on the merits. That the democrats now keep moving the goal posts on the FBI investigation is not a surprise, either. An open-ended FBI investigation into Kavanaugh and his drinking? What a fucking joke. The democrats should be embarrassed. Hopefully in the next few days Flake will grow a spine, and Kavanaugh can be voted in.
Do you have any concern he didn't tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in front of congress?
For instance, him saying under oath that he had no connections to Yale and technically being a legacy student are clearly conflicting. Is it the kinda lie you don't have a problem with your top judges telling or it it the kind of incompetence you're comfortable with that led him to say something untrue? Or is there another explanation without deception or incompetence that explains inconsistencies in his responses to congress and the historical record for you?
Not really. I paid fairly close attention to his testimony, and there was nothing that really set off alarm bells. He may have understated his drinking during his school years, but he probably wasn't asked the right questions such he's at risk of getting in trouble.
What's the Yale thing that he wasn't up front about?
He said he had no connections to Yale and was actually a legacy.
It's not infrequent that "self-made" men tell mistruths of this sort, it's unclear whether they genuinely believe them or not.
Eh, the guy graduated at the top of his class in undergrad and law school. That doesn't happen without great personal effort and achievement.
The question isn't whether he worked hard or not though, it's whether his misstatement is one of deception, incompetence or something else?
I doubt it amounts to deception or incompetence.
If he was arguing a criminal case and he said the person had no connections to Yale, but they were actually legacy you wouldn't consider that a material misrepresentation of the facts?
If it isn't surely you can say what it at least could be otherwise. If you can't even imagine what it is, I'm inclined to go with the more obvious answers.
Well, what is a “connection?” If I recall correctly, Kavanaugh was the one who volunteered that he had no connections to Yale. He wasn’t examined on it. Because of this, there is necessarily a subjective element to the statement. If you want to a lock a witness down, you have to define ambiguous terms before getting the witness to commit to an answer.
So depending on the answers to the follow-up questions it may or may not be a material misrepresentation.
To the larger question of whether his demeanor, his evasiveness, or his potential misstatements gave you even the appearance of impropriety or make you question whether he is primarily a merit nomination as opposed to primarily a political one?
I have to say it seems you're more willing to reserve judgement on what appear to be disqualifying behavior patterns for a Republican justice than I think you would be if it was a Democratic nominee with precisely the same issues, but I can only take your word for it if you suggest this isn't political and instead in your opinion Kavanaugh has demonstrated himself to be an elite judge worthy of it's highest seats and not mostly finding himself there for political reasons.
On October 02 2018 00:48 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Mitchell's report is all the same shit that I have been pointing out for weeks. Anyone with half a brain knew how this was going to turn out on the merits. That the democrats now keep moving the goal posts on the FBI investigation is not a surprise, either. An open-ended FBI investigation into Kavanaugh and his drinking? What a fucking joke. The democrats should be embarrassed. Hopefully in the next few days Flake will grow a spine, and Kavanaugh can be voted in.
Do you have any concern he didn't tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in front of congress?
For instance, him saying under oath that he had no connections to Yale and technically being a legacy student are clearly conflicting. Is it the kinda lie you don't have a problem with your top judges telling or it it the kind of incompetence you're comfortable with that led him to say something untrue? Or is there another explanation without deception or incompetence that explains inconsistencies in his responses to congress and the historical record for you?
Not really. I paid fairly close attention to his testimony, and there was nothing that really set off alarm bells. He may have understated his drinking during his school years, but he probably wasn't asked the right questions such he's at risk of getting in trouble.
What's the Yale thing that he wasn't up front about?
He said he had no connections to Yale and was actually a legacy.
It's not infrequent that "self-made" men tell mistruths of this sort, it's unclear whether they genuinely believe them or not.
Eh, the guy graduated at the top of his class in undergrad and law school. That doesn't happen without great personal effort and achievement.
The question isn't whether he worked hard or not though, it's whether his misstatement is one of deception, incompetence or something else?
I doubt it amounts to deception or incompetence.
If he was arguing a criminal case and he said the person had no connections to Yale, but they were actually legacy you wouldn't consider that a material misrepresentation of the facts?
If it isn't surely you can say what it at least could be otherwise. If you can't even imagine what it is, I'm inclined to go with the more obvious answers.
Well, what is a “connection?” If I recall correctly, Kavanaugh was the one who volunteered that he had no connections to Yale. He wasn’t examined on it. Because of this, there is necessarily a subjective element to the statement. If you want to a lock a witness down, you have to define ambiguous terms before getting the witness to commit to an answer.
So depending on the answers to the follow-up questions it may or may not be a material misrepresentation.
There's two different issues here. The first is whether there is a misrepresentation. The second is whether it is material. What I am saying is that it is very difficult to argue that there has been a misrepresentation when the statement in question is ambiguous and therefore subject to more than one interpretation. If I was examining Kavanaugh, and I thought that this issue was material, I would have asked him what he meant by "connection" or (presuming that I did my homework), I would have asked him whether he had any Yale graduates in his family, and then followed that up with asking for a correction on the record.
To the larger question of whether his demeanor, his evasiveness, or his potential misstatements gave you even the appearance of impropriety or make you question whether he is primarily a merit nomination as opposed to primarily a political one?
Kavanaugh's testimony has nothing to do with his merits as a judge. He has impeccable credentials, which is why the Democrats are trying to derail with him with slanderous horseshit. As for his testimony in particular, I didn't see anything particularly disqualifying about his testimony. You have to keep in mind his situation and the circumstances surrounding his testimony. Not only was he in a position in which he had to defend himself against patently baseless accusations, but he was asked multiple, completely objectionable questions that had no bearing on anything. The repeated question about whether he wanted the FBI to get involved was one such question. It was a circus, and he knew it was a circus.
I have to say it seems you're more willing to reserve judgement on what appear to be disqualifying behavior patterns for a Republican justice than I think you would be if it was a Democratic nominee with precisely the same issues, but I can only take your word for it if you suggest this isn't political and instead in your opinion Kavanaugh has demonstrated himself to be an elite judge worthy of it's highest seats and not mostly finding himself there for political reasons.
Nonsense. What Kavanaugh is dealing with is completely unprecedented. Besides, there were certainly parts of Kavanaugh's testimony I did not like, and I pointed them out during his testimony.
On October 02 2018 08:45 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Do you have any concern he didn't tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in front of congress?
For instance, him saying under oath that he had no connections to Yale and technically being a legacy student are clearly conflicting. Is it the kinda lie you don't have a problem with your top judges telling or it it the kind of incompetence you're comfortable with that led him to say something untrue? Or is there another explanation without deception or incompetence that explains inconsistencies in his responses to congress and the historical record for you?
Not really. I paid fairly close attention to his testimony, and there was nothing that really set off alarm bells. He may have understated his drinking during his school years, but he probably wasn't asked the right questions such he's at risk of getting in trouble.
What's the Yale thing that he wasn't up front about?
He said he had no connections to Yale and was actually a legacy.
It's not infrequent that "self-made" men tell mistruths of this sort, it's unclear whether they genuinely believe them or not.
Eh, the guy graduated at the top of his class in undergrad and law school. That doesn't happen without great personal effort and achievement.
The question isn't whether he worked hard or not though, it's whether his misstatement is one of deception, incompetence or something else?
I doubt it amounts to deception or incompetence.
If he was arguing a criminal case and he said the person had no connections to Yale, but they were actually legacy you wouldn't consider that a material misrepresentation of the facts?
If it isn't surely you can say what it at least could be otherwise. If you can't even imagine what it is, I'm inclined to go with the more obvious answers.
Well, what is a “connection?” If I recall correctly, Kavanaugh was the one who volunteered that he had no connections to Yale. He wasn’t examined on it. Because of this, there is necessarily a subjective element to the statement. If you want to a lock a witness down, you have to define ambiguous terms before getting the witness to commit to an answer.
So depending on the answers to the follow-up questions it may or may not be a material misrepresentation.
There's two different issues here. The first is whether there is a misrepresentation. The second is whether it is material. What I am saying is that it is very difficult to argue that there has been a misrepresentation when the statement in question is ambiguous and therefore subject to more than one interpretation. If I was examining Kavanaugh, and I thought that this issue was material, I would have asked him what he meant by "connection" or (presuming that I did my homework), I would have asked him whether he had any Yale graduates in his family, and then followed that up with asking for a correction on the record.
To the larger question of whether his demeanor, his evasiveness, or his potential misstatements gave you even the appearance of impropriety or make you question whether he is primarily a merit nomination as opposed to primarily a political one?
Kavanaugh's testimony has nothing to do with his merits as a judge. He has impeccable credentials, which is why the Democrats are trying to derail with him with slanderous horseshit. As for his testimony in particular, I didn't see anything particularly disqualifying about his testimony. You have to keep in mind his situation and the circumstances surrounding his testimony. Not only was he in a position in which he had to defend himself against patently baseless accusations, but he was asked multiple, completely objectionable questions that had no bearing on anything. The repeated question about whether he wanted the FBI to get involved was one such question. It was a circus, and he knew it was a circus.
I have to say it seems you're more willing to reserve judgement on what appear to be disqualifying behavior patterns for a Republican justice than I think you would be if it was a Democratic nominee with precisely the same issues, but I can only take your word for it if you suggest this isn't political and instead in your opinion Kavanaugh has demonstrated himself to be an elite judge worthy of it's highest seats and not mostly finding himself there for political reasons.
Nonsense. What Kavanaugh is dealing with is completely unprecedented. Besides, there were certainly parts of Kavanaugh's testimony I did not like, and I pointed them out during his testimony.
Fair enough. But just so I'm clear on this part
I didn't see anything particularly disqualifying about his testimony. You have to keep in mind his situation and the circumstances surrounding his testimony. Not only was he in a position in which he had to defend himself against patently baseless accusations, but he was asked multiple, completely objectionable questions that had no bearing on anything. The repeated question about whether he wanted the FBI to get involved was one such question. It was a circus, and he knew it was a circus.
I don't think he displayed the temperament I'd like to see in a SCJ (as idealized) but I can understand your position as well.
My social media feed - especially the generally apolitical stuff like neighborhood pages - seems to be flooded with these #resist types demanding that everyone go out and force senators to stop the vote on Kavanaugh until a “full investigation” can occur. I can’t help but feel like there’s some astroturfing effort going on here, average people don’t normally post like this.
EPT
