|
On October 02 2018 11:31 LegalLord wrote:
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.
I think you underestimate how many women have been assaulted in their lives and feel personally affronted by the prospect of someone with allegations similar to theirs is heading to the supreme court, I also think Democrats underestimate how many men empathize with Kavanaugh and how many women are loyally married to them.
That said every national headline is going to have synthetic amplification or astroturfing in today's political atmosphere. But that's not dissimilar to what we saw with billionaires funding propaganda during the Obama administration.
|
On October 02 2018 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
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.
In this instance, no, I do not want a justice who showed more temperance at the hearing. The single most important attribute of a judge is having a keen sense of justice. He needs to know what is fair, proper, and right. That necessarily also means that he needs to know what is wrong. I can't stress this part enough: what the democrats have done to Kavanaugh is not just wrong, it is evil. Not only has a good man been slandered with utter nonsense for unquestionably political purposes, but the manner in which it is being done completely subverts due process and the rule of law. Politicians are openly advocating against the presumption innocence, and a huge chunk of the population is agreeing with them. What is going on is simply outrageous, and it was entirely proper for Kavanaugh to show his outrage in this circumstance. I'd expect nothing less from any Supreme Court justice.
|
On October 02 2018 11:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2018 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
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. In this instance, no, I do not want a justice who showed more temperance at the hearing. The single most important attribute of a judge is having a keen sense of justice. He needs to know what is fair, proper, and right. That necessarily also means that he needs to know what is wrong. I can't stress this part enough: what the democrats have done to Kavanaugh is not just wrong, it is evil. Not only has a good man been slandered with utter nonsense for unquestionably political purposes, but the manner in which it is being done completely subverts due process and the rule of law. Politicians are openly advocating against the presumption innocence, and a huge chunk of the population is agreeing with them. What is going on is simply outrageous, and it was entirely proper for Kavanaugh to show his outrage in this circumstance. I'd expect nothing less from any Supreme Court justice.
It is possible it's not slander and he did attack Ford (and is a bad drunk) even if there's a consensus he wouldn't be prosecuted/convicted for it.
|
The latest shitshow at NBC News with the Swetnick interview and NBC news with another idiotic try to prove perjury with Kavanaugh makes me no longer think the squishes will do their thing, but that they'll stand with Kavanaugh and pick up 2-3 dems trying to win election in red states. For example:ND is polling 21% Kavanaugh top issue, and 60% support Kavanaugh. Heitkamp is down 10. She's going to get crucified if she votes against Kavanaugh.
I think the only move for Dems is to double down on all of this, but how?
|
On October 02 2018 12:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2018 11:54 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
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. In this instance, no, I do not want a justice who showed more temperance at the hearing. The single most important attribute of a judge is having a keen sense of justice. He needs to know what is fair, proper, and right. That necessarily also means that he needs to know what is wrong. I can't stress this part enough: what the democrats have done to Kavanaugh is not just wrong, it is evil. Not only has a good man been slandered with utter nonsense for unquestionably political purposes, but the manner in which it is being done completely subverts due process and the rule of law. Politicians are openly advocating against the presumption innocence, and a huge chunk of the population is agreeing with them. What is going on is simply outrageous, and it was entirely proper for Kavanaugh to show his outrage in this circumstance. I'd expect nothing less from any Supreme Court justice. It is possible it's not slander and he did attack Ford (and is a bad drunk) even if there's a consensus he wouldn't be prosecuted/convicted for it.
Possible, but incredibly unlikely given the facts we know.
|
On October 02 2018 13:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2018 12:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 11:54 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
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. In this instance, no, I do not want a justice who showed more temperance at the hearing. The single most important attribute of a judge is having a keen sense of justice. He needs to know what is fair, proper, and right. That necessarily also means that he needs to know what is wrong. I can't stress this part enough: what the democrats have done to Kavanaugh is not just wrong, it is evil. Not only has a good man been slandered with utter nonsense for unquestionably political purposes, but the manner in which it is being done completely subverts due process and the rule of law. Politicians are openly advocating against the presumption innocence, and a huge chunk of the population is agreeing with them. What is going on is simply outrageous, and it was entirely proper for Kavanaugh to show his outrage in this circumstance. I'd expect nothing less from any Supreme Court justice. It is possible it's not slander and he did attack Ford (and is a bad drunk) even if there's a consensus he wouldn't be prosecuted/convicted for it. Possible, but incredibly unlikely given the facts we know.
I don't think I agree with "incredibly unlikely" I'd willingly concede "nowhere near a conviction (were it a trial)" but people get rejected for lesser jobs for lesser rumors so I think it's perfectly reasonable to not want him on the SC unless the political (more specifically 'partisan') side of it comes into play.
|
On October 02 2018 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2018 10:51 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 10:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 10:00 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 09:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 09:27 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 09:08 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 09:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 08:54 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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 Show nested quote + 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.
i think he said he had “no connections” when speaking of yale law school, not yale college. which may be true if his grandfather only went to yale college.
you know, what everyone is arguing about IS the materiality of certain lacunae in his testimony. the anti-K people know he’s unfit and so find it material that he didn’t admit to something that would be disqualifying in itself. therefore he has committed has perjury.
people in general are really bad at comprehension and context
|
On October 02 2018 16:31 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2018 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 10:51 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 10:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 10:00 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 09:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 09:27 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 09:08 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 09:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
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. i think he said he had “no connections” when speaking of yale law school, not yale college. which may be true if his grandfather only went to yale college. you know, what everyone is arguing about IS the materiality of certain lacunae in his testimony. the anti-K people know he’s unfit and so find it material that he didn’t admit to something that would be disqualifying in itself. therefore he has committed has perjury. people in general are really bad at comprehension and context
It's pretty tough to keep this stuff straight with all the terrible reporting going on, but everything about the guy reminds me of people I know of a similar (though less prestigious), background.
On top of that the whole system is in such shambles for anything but upholding some ethereal, yet bloodthirsty, competitive oligarchy that it's hard for me to even imagine the court as anything more than a political enforcement arm set up by slave owning rapists. Which also happens to describe the vast majority of law enforcement in this country and the point/system with which we're trying to address problems that weren't viewed as problems to the people who set up the systems.
I was trying to make the best version of the liberal argument I could muster but xDaunt /you caught me uninformed about the details.
I mean I'd sooner watch him trip into a pit of venomous scorpions than sit on the supreme court, but liberals/Democrats wouldn't support my reasons, and as pretty well demonstrated, their reasons are insufficient. So as I said from the beginning he'll be confirmed with a bipartisan vote and as polling is indicating Democrats will be worse off than before they picked this fight.
|
Democrats would do well to learn how to offer bold proposals instead focusing on failing at stopping Trumps agenda.
Amazon said today it will increase its minimum wage to $15, following congressional pressure over the working conditions faced by its warehouse workers.
The minimum wage increase will be effective Nov. 1, before the holiday shopping season, and apply to full-, part-time, temporary and seasonal workers, the company said.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has emerged as a fierce critic of Amazon's treatment of its workers. Last month, Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced the Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act, or Stop BEZOS Act, aimed at curbing the number of corporate employees on welfare.
The measure would impose a tax on companies with 500 or more employees to fully compensate for any government benefits their workers draw.
www.politico.com
|
On October 02 2018 17:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2018 16:31 IgnE wrote:On October 02 2018 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 10:51 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 10:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 10:00 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 09:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 09:27 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 09:08 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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. i think he said he had “no connections” when speaking of yale law school, not yale college. which may be true if his grandfather only went to yale college. you know, what everyone is arguing about IS the materiality of certain lacunae in his testimony. the anti-K people know he’s unfit and so find it material that he didn’t admit to something that would be disqualifying in itself. therefore he has committed has perjury. people in general are really bad at comprehension and context It's pretty tough to keep this stuff straight with all the terrible reporting going on, but everything about the guy reminds me of people I know of a similar (though less prestigious), background. On top of that the whole system is in such shambles for anything but upholding some ethereal, yet bloodthirsty, competitive oligarchy that it's hard for me to even imagine the court as anything more than a political enforcement arm set up by slave owning rapists. Which also happens to describe the vast majority of law enforcement in this country and the point/system with which we're trying to address problems that weren't viewed as problems to the people who set up the systems. I was trying to make the best version of the liberal argument I could muster but xDaunt /you caught me uninformed about the details. I mean I'd sooner watch him trip into a pit of venomous scorpions than sit on the supreme court, but liberals/Democrats wouldn't support my reasons, and as pretty well demonstrated, their reasons are insufficient. So as I said from the beginning he'll be confirmed with a bipartisan vote and as polling is indicating Democrats will be worse off than before they picked this fight.
The general opposition to Kavanaugh is as deranged as the general opposition to Trump. In both cases, the democrats have literally resorted to making shit up about each guy, despite there being plenty of contrast policy-wise. I'd have to go study precisely how this happened, but my suspicion is that this is the natural outgrowth of the Clinton presidency and campaigns of the 1990s.
|
On October 02 2018 21:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Democrats would do well to learn how to offer bold proposals instead focusing on failing at stopping Trumps agenda. Show nested quote +Amazon said today it will increase its minimum wage to $15, following congressional pressure over the working conditions faced by its warehouse workers.
The minimum wage increase will be effective Nov. 1, before the holiday shopping season, and apply to full-, part-time, temporary and seasonal workers, the company said.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has emerged as a fierce critic of Amazon's treatment of its workers. Last month, Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced the Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act, or Stop BEZOS Act, aimed at curbing the number of corporate employees on welfare.
The measure would impose a tax on companies with 500 or more employees to fully compensate for any government benefits their workers draw. www.politico.com
See my comment above about offering a contrast with the GOP.
|
Democrats go in so rabidly with their disdain for everything Trump that I just find myself saying, “ok, I’m no fan of his, but he’s not that bad.” Not to mention the “and you’re no prize to vote for either” sentiment that has become increasingly well-defined since 2016.
|
On October 02 2018 22:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2018 17:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 16:31 IgnE wrote:On October 02 2018 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 10:51 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 10:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 10:00 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 09:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 09:27 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
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. i think he said he had “no connections” when speaking of yale law school, not yale college. which may be true if his grandfather only went to yale college. you know, what everyone is arguing about IS the materiality of certain lacunae in his testimony. the anti-K people know he’s unfit and so find it material that he didn’t admit to something that would be disqualifying in itself. therefore he has committed has perjury. people in general are really bad at comprehension and context It's pretty tough to keep this stuff straight with all the terrible reporting going on, but everything about the guy reminds me of people I know of a similar (though less prestigious), background. On top of that the whole system is in such shambles for anything but upholding some ethereal, yet bloodthirsty, competitive oligarchy that it's hard for me to even imagine the court as anything more than a political enforcement arm set up by slave owning rapists. Which also happens to describe the vast majority of law enforcement in this country and the point/system with which we're trying to address problems that weren't viewed as problems to the people who set up the systems. I was trying to make the best version of the liberal argument I could muster but xDaunt /you caught me uninformed about the details. I mean I'd sooner watch him trip into a pit of venomous scorpions than sit on the supreme court, but liberals/Democrats wouldn't support my reasons, and as pretty well demonstrated, their reasons are insufficient. So as I said from the beginning he'll be confirmed with a bipartisan vote and as polling is indicating Democrats will be worse off than before they picked this fight. The general opposition to Kavanaugh is as deranged as the general opposition to Trump. In both cases, the democrats have literally resorted to making shit up about each guy, despite there being plenty of contrast policy-wise. I'd have to go study precisely how this happened, but my suspicion is that this is the natural outgrowth of the Clinton presidency and campaigns of the 1990s.
When I read about how xDaunt thinks the Democrats behave, I always see a picture of how I wish they actually were =/
The Democrats jumped at the sexual assault charge because it allows them to attack Kavanaugh for another reason than because they don't believe he has correct policies. They probably think they get bonus points for that, but they don't. On the opposing side, they still get accused of doing exactly that, as xDaunt is displaying here. And on my side, it makes me think that if there was no such history they'd just let him be on the Supreme Court without much of a fight, which is disheartening.
|
On October 03 2018 05:55 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2018 22:26 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 17:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 16:31 IgnE wrote:On October 02 2018 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 10:51 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 10:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 10:00 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 09:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 09:27 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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. i think he said he had “no connections” when speaking of yale law school, not yale college. which may be true if his grandfather only went to yale college. you know, what everyone is arguing about IS the materiality of certain lacunae in his testimony. the anti-K people know he’s unfit and so find it material that he didn’t admit to something that would be disqualifying in itself. therefore he has committed has perjury. people in general are really bad at comprehension and context It's pretty tough to keep this stuff straight with all the terrible reporting going on, but everything about the guy reminds me of people I know of a similar (though less prestigious), background. On top of that the whole system is in such shambles for anything but upholding some ethereal, yet bloodthirsty, competitive oligarchy that it's hard for me to even imagine the court as anything more than a political enforcement arm set up by slave owning rapists. Which also happens to describe the vast majority of law enforcement in this country and the point/system with which we're trying to address problems that weren't viewed as problems to the people who set up the systems. I was trying to make the best version of the liberal argument I could muster but xDaunt /you caught me uninformed about the details. I mean I'd sooner watch him trip into a pit of venomous scorpions than sit on the supreme court, but liberals/Democrats wouldn't support my reasons, and as pretty well demonstrated, their reasons are insufficient. So as I said from the beginning he'll be confirmed with a bipartisan vote and as polling is indicating Democrats will be worse off than before they picked this fight. The general opposition to Kavanaugh is as deranged as the general opposition to Trump. In both cases, the democrats have literally resorted to making shit up about each guy, despite there being plenty of contrast policy-wise. I'd have to go study precisely how this happened, but my suspicion is that this is the natural outgrowth of the Clinton presidency and campaigns of the 1990s. When I read about how xDaunt thinks the Democrats behave, I always see a picture of how I wish they actually were =/ The Democrats jumped at the sexual assault charge because it allows them to attack Kavanaugh for another reason than because they don't believe he has correct policies. They probably think they get bonus points for that, but they don't. On the opposing side, they still get accused of doing exactly that, as xDaunt is displaying here. And on my side, it makes me think that if there was no such history they'd just let him be on the Supreme Court without much of a fight, which is disheartening.
I'm a little confused by what you think is inaccurate about my statement about the opposition to Kavanaugh. The slander being pushed by the Democrats has completely consumed all available air space.
|
On October 03 2018 06:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 05:55 Nebuchad wrote:On October 02 2018 22:26 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 17:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 16:31 IgnE wrote:On October 02 2018 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 10:51 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 10:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 10:00 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 09:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
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. i think he said he had “no connections” when speaking of yale law school, not yale college. which may be true if his grandfather only went to yale college. you know, what everyone is arguing about IS the materiality of certain lacunae in his testimony. the anti-K people know he’s unfit and so find it material that he didn’t admit to something that would be disqualifying in itself. therefore he has committed has perjury. people in general are really bad at comprehension and context It's pretty tough to keep this stuff straight with all the terrible reporting going on, but everything about the guy reminds me of people I know of a similar (though less prestigious), background. On top of that the whole system is in such shambles for anything but upholding some ethereal, yet bloodthirsty, competitive oligarchy that it's hard for me to even imagine the court as anything more than a political enforcement arm set up by slave owning rapists. Which also happens to describe the vast majority of law enforcement in this country and the point/system with which we're trying to address problems that weren't viewed as problems to the people who set up the systems. I was trying to make the best version of the liberal argument I could muster but xDaunt /you caught me uninformed about the details. I mean I'd sooner watch him trip into a pit of venomous scorpions than sit on the supreme court, but liberals/Democrats wouldn't support my reasons, and as pretty well demonstrated, their reasons are insufficient. So as I said from the beginning he'll be confirmed with a bipartisan vote and as polling is indicating Democrats will be worse off than before they picked this fight. The general opposition to Kavanaugh is as deranged as the general opposition to Trump. In both cases, the democrats have literally resorted to making shit up about each guy, despite there being plenty of contrast policy-wise. I'd have to go study precisely how this happened, but my suspicion is that this is the natural outgrowth of the Clinton presidency and campaigns of the 1990s. When I read about how xDaunt thinks the Democrats behave, I always see a picture of how I wish they actually were =/ The Democrats jumped at the sexual assault charge because it allows them to attack Kavanaugh for another reason than because they don't believe he has correct policies. They probably think they get bonus points for that, but they don't. On the opposing side, they still get accused of doing exactly that, as xDaunt is displaying here. And on my side, it makes me think that if there was no such history they'd just let him be on the Supreme Court without much of a fight, which is disheartening. I'm a little confused by what you think is inaccurate about my statement about the opposition to Kavanaugh. The slander being pushed by the Democrats has completely consumed all available air space.
I'm not convinced that it's slander, but that's not super relevant, I'd hope that Democrats would be opposed to him regardless of those specific accusations based on what he said and what he represents. I'm just concerned that they wouldn't be, as evidenced by Gorsuch - and that's a huge problem.
|
On October 03 2018 06:58 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 05:55 Nebuchad wrote:On October 02 2018 22:26 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 17:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 16:31 IgnE wrote:On October 02 2018 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 10:51 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 10:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 10:00 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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. i think he said he had “no connections” when speaking of yale law school, not yale college. which may be true if his grandfather only went to yale college. you know, what everyone is arguing about IS the materiality of certain lacunae in his testimony. the anti-K people know he’s unfit and so find it material that he didn’t admit to something that would be disqualifying in itself. therefore he has committed has perjury. people in general are really bad at comprehension and context It's pretty tough to keep this stuff straight with all the terrible reporting going on, but everything about the guy reminds me of people I know of a similar (though less prestigious), background. On top of that the whole system is in such shambles for anything but upholding some ethereal, yet bloodthirsty, competitive oligarchy that it's hard for me to even imagine the court as anything more than a political enforcement arm set up by slave owning rapists. Which also happens to describe the vast majority of law enforcement in this country and the point/system with which we're trying to address problems that weren't viewed as problems to the people who set up the systems. I was trying to make the best version of the liberal argument I could muster but xDaunt /you caught me uninformed about the details. I mean I'd sooner watch him trip into a pit of venomous scorpions than sit on the supreme court, but liberals/Democrats wouldn't support my reasons, and as pretty well demonstrated, their reasons are insufficient. So as I said from the beginning he'll be confirmed with a bipartisan vote and as polling is indicating Democrats will be worse off than before they picked this fight. The general opposition to Kavanaugh is as deranged as the general opposition to Trump. In both cases, the democrats have literally resorted to making shit up about each guy, despite there being plenty of contrast policy-wise. I'd have to go study precisely how this happened, but my suspicion is that this is the natural outgrowth of the Clinton presidency and campaigns of the 1990s. When I read about how xDaunt thinks the Democrats behave, I always see a picture of how I wish they actually were =/ The Democrats jumped at the sexual assault charge because it allows them to attack Kavanaugh for another reason than because they don't believe he has correct policies. They probably think they get bonus points for that, but they don't. On the opposing side, they still get accused of doing exactly that, as xDaunt is displaying here. And on my side, it makes me think that if there was no such history they'd just let him be on the Supreme Court without much of a fight, which is disheartening. I'm a little confused by what you think is inaccurate about my statement about the opposition to Kavanaugh. The slander being pushed by the Democrats has completely consumed all available air space. I'm not convinced that it's slander, but that's not super relevant, I'd hope that Democrats would be opposed to him regardless of those specific accusations based on what he said and what he represents. I'm just concerned that they wouldn't be, as evidenced by Gorsuch - and that's a huge problem.
Of course the Democrats are opposed to him regardless of the accusations. They have made that abundantly clear. The Democrats pioneered the politicization of the Court, so why would they stop now?
|
On October 03 2018 07:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 06:58 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 05:55 Nebuchad wrote:On October 02 2018 22:26 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 17:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 16:31 IgnE wrote:On October 02 2018 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 10:51 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 10:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
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. i think he said he had “no connections” when speaking of yale law school, not yale college. which may be true if his grandfather only went to yale college. you know, what everyone is arguing about IS the materiality of certain lacunae in his testimony. the anti-K people know he’s unfit and so find it material that he didn’t admit to something that would be disqualifying in itself. therefore he has committed has perjury. people in general are really bad at comprehension and context It's pretty tough to keep this stuff straight with all the terrible reporting going on, but everything about the guy reminds me of people I know of a similar (though less prestigious), background. On top of that the whole system is in such shambles for anything but upholding some ethereal, yet bloodthirsty, competitive oligarchy that it's hard for me to even imagine the court as anything more than a political enforcement arm set up by slave owning rapists. Which also happens to describe the vast majority of law enforcement in this country and the point/system with which we're trying to address problems that weren't viewed as problems to the people who set up the systems. I was trying to make the best version of the liberal argument I could muster but xDaunt /you caught me uninformed about the details. I mean I'd sooner watch him trip into a pit of venomous scorpions than sit on the supreme court, but liberals/Democrats wouldn't support my reasons, and as pretty well demonstrated, their reasons are insufficient. So as I said from the beginning he'll be confirmed with a bipartisan vote and as polling is indicating Democrats will be worse off than before they picked this fight. The general opposition to Kavanaugh is as deranged as the general opposition to Trump. In both cases, the democrats have literally resorted to making shit up about each guy, despite there being plenty of contrast policy-wise. I'd have to go study precisely how this happened, but my suspicion is that this is the natural outgrowth of the Clinton presidency and campaigns of the 1990s. When I read about how xDaunt thinks the Democrats behave, I always see a picture of how I wish they actually were =/ The Democrats jumped at the sexual assault charge because it allows them to attack Kavanaugh for another reason than because they don't believe he has correct policies. They probably think they get bonus points for that, but they don't. On the opposing side, they still get accused of doing exactly that, as xDaunt is displaying here. And on my side, it makes me think that if there was no such history they'd just let him be on the Supreme Court without much of a fight, which is disheartening. I'm a little confused by what you think is inaccurate about my statement about the opposition to Kavanaugh. The slander being pushed by the Democrats has completely consumed all available air space. I'm not convinced that it's slander, but that's not super relevant, I'd hope that Democrats would be opposed to him regardless of those specific accusations based on what he said and what he represents. I'm just concerned that they wouldn't be, as evidenced by Gorsuch - and that's a huge problem. Of course the Democrats are opposed to him regardless of the accusations. They have made that abundantly clear. The Democrats pioneered the politicization of the Court, so why would they stop now?
There's nothing abundantly clear about that statement. It makes the situation all around easier if opposing Kavanaugh means you also have morality and righteousness on your side, so it's logical to jump at those sexual conduct accusations or the perjury accusations in an attempt to obtain that. If there's nothing to jump at, would they be jumping? We don't know that. I certainly hope they would, but I can't say I trust them to.
|
On October 03 2018 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 06:58 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 05:55 Nebuchad wrote:On October 02 2018 22:26 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 17:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 16:31 IgnE wrote:On October 02 2018 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 10:51 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. i think he said he had “no connections” when speaking of yale law school, not yale college. which may be true if his grandfather only went to yale college. you know, what everyone is arguing about IS the materiality of certain lacunae in his testimony. the anti-K people know he’s unfit and so find it material that he didn’t admit to something that would be disqualifying in itself. therefore he has committed has perjury. people in general are really bad at comprehension and context It's pretty tough to keep this stuff straight with all the terrible reporting going on, but everything about the guy reminds me of people I know of a similar (though less prestigious), background. On top of that the whole system is in such shambles for anything but upholding some ethereal, yet bloodthirsty, competitive oligarchy that it's hard for me to even imagine the court as anything more than a political enforcement arm set up by slave owning rapists. Which also happens to describe the vast majority of law enforcement in this country and the point/system with which we're trying to address problems that weren't viewed as problems to the people who set up the systems. I was trying to make the best version of the liberal argument I could muster but xDaunt /you caught me uninformed about the details. I mean I'd sooner watch him trip into a pit of venomous scorpions than sit on the supreme court, but liberals/Democrats wouldn't support my reasons, and as pretty well demonstrated, their reasons are insufficient. So as I said from the beginning he'll be confirmed with a bipartisan vote and as polling is indicating Democrats will be worse off than before they picked this fight. The general opposition to Kavanaugh is as deranged as the general opposition to Trump. In both cases, the democrats have literally resorted to making shit up about each guy, despite there being plenty of contrast policy-wise. I'd have to go study precisely how this happened, but my suspicion is that this is the natural outgrowth of the Clinton presidency and campaigns of the 1990s. When I read about how xDaunt thinks the Democrats behave, I always see a picture of how I wish they actually were =/ The Democrats jumped at the sexual assault charge because it allows them to attack Kavanaugh for another reason than because they don't believe he has correct policies. They probably think they get bonus points for that, but they don't. On the opposing side, they still get accused of doing exactly that, as xDaunt is displaying here. And on my side, it makes me think that if there was no such history they'd just let him be on the Supreme Court without much of a fight, which is disheartening. I'm a little confused by what you think is inaccurate about my statement about the opposition to Kavanaugh. The slander being pushed by the Democrats has completely consumed all available air space. I'm not convinced that it's slander, but that's not super relevant, I'd hope that Democrats would be opposed to him regardless of those specific accusations based on what he said and what he represents. I'm just concerned that they wouldn't be, as evidenced by Gorsuch - and that's a huge problem. Of course the Democrats are opposed to him regardless of the accusations. They have made that abundantly clear. The Democrats pioneered the politicization of the Court, so why would they stop now? There's nothing abundantly clear about that statement. It makes the situation all around easier if opposing Kavanaugh means you also have morality and righteousness on your side, so it's logical to jump at those sexual conduct accusations or the perjury accusations in an attempt to obtain that. If there's nothing to jump at, would they be jumping? We don't know that. I certainly hope they would, but I can't say I trust them to.
What? With the potential exception of a handful of moderates, who else in the Senate is on board with Kavanaugh's brand of jurisprudence?
|
On October 03 2018 07:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 06:58 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 05:55 Nebuchad wrote:On October 02 2018 22:26 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 17:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 16:31 IgnE wrote:On October 02 2018 11:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Fair enough. But just so I'm clear on this part
[quote]
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. i think he said he had “no connections” when speaking of yale law school, not yale college. which may be true if his grandfather only went to yale college. you know, what everyone is arguing about IS the materiality of certain lacunae in his testimony. the anti-K people know he’s unfit and so find it material that he didn’t admit to something that would be disqualifying in itself. therefore he has committed has perjury. people in general are really bad at comprehension and context It's pretty tough to keep this stuff straight with all the terrible reporting going on, but everything about the guy reminds me of people I know of a similar (though less prestigious), background. On top of that the whole system is in such shambles for anything but upholding some ethereal, yet bloodthirsty, competitive oligarchy that it's hard for me to even imagine the court as anything more than a political enforcement arm set up by slave owning rapists. Which also happens to describe the vast majority of law enforcement in this country and the point/system with which we're trying to address problems that weren't viewed as problems to the people who set up the systems. I was trying to make the best version of the liberal argument I could muster but xDaunt /you caught me uninformed about the details. I mean I'd sooner watch him trip into a pit of venomous scorpions than sit on the supreme court, but liberals/Democrats wouldn't support my reasons, and as pretty well demonstrated, their reasons are insufficient. So as I said from the beginning he'll be confirmed with a bipartisan vote and as polling is indicating Democrats will be worse off than before they picked this fight. The general opposition to Kavanaugh is as deranged as the general opposition to Trump. In both cases, the democrats have literally resorted to making shit up about each guy, despite there being plenty of contrast policy-wise. I'd have to go study precisely how this happened, but my suspicion is that this is the natural outgrowth of the Clinton presidency and campaigns of the 1990s. When I read about how xDaunt thinks the Democrats behave, I always see a picture of how I wish they actually were =/ The Democrats jumped at the sexual assault charge because it allows them to attack Kavanaugh for another reason than because they don't believe he has correct policies. They probably think they get bonus points for that, but they don't. On the opposing side, they still get accused of doing exactly that, as xDaunt is displaying here. And on my side, it makes me think that if there was no such history they'd just let him be on the Supreme Court without much of a fight, which is disheartening. I'm a little confused by what you think is inaccurate about my statement about the opposition to Kavanaugh. The slander being pushed by the Democrats has completely consumed all available air space. I'm not convinced that it's slander, but that's not super relevant, I'd hope that Democrats would be opposed to him regardless of those specific accusations based on what he said and what he represents. I'm just concerned that they wouldn't be, as evidenced by Gorsuch - and that's a huge problem. Of course the Democrats are opposed to him regardless of the accusations. They have made that abundantly clear. The Democrats pioneered the politicization of the Court, so why would they stop now? There's nothing abundantly clear about that statement. It makes the situation all around easier if opposing Kavanaugh means you also have morality and righteousness on your side, so it's logical to jump at those sexual conduct accusations or the perjury accusations in an attempt to obtain that. If there's nothing to jump at, would they be jumping? We don't know that. I certainly hope they would, but I can't say I trust them to. What? With the potential exception of a handful of moderates, who else in the Senate is on board with Kavanaugh's brand of jurisprudence?
Presumably the same was true for Gorsuch, and they didn't put up much of a fight, wouldn't you agree? A bit of pouting over Garland, and then we moved on.
|
On October 03 2018 07:45 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 07:40 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 06:58 Nebuchad wrote:On October 03 2018 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On October 03 2018 05:55 Nebuchad wrote:On October 02 2018 22:26 xDaunt wrote:On October 02 2018 17:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2018 16:31 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
i think he said he had “no connections” when speaking of yale law school, not yale college. which may be true if his grandfather only went to yale college.
you know, what everyone is arguing about IS the materiality of certain lacunae in his testimony. the anti-K people know he’s unfit and so find it material that he didn’t admit to something that would be disqualifying in itself. therefore he has committed has perjury.
people in general are really bad at comprehension and context It's pretty tough to keep this stuff straight with all the terrible reporting going on, but everything about the guy reminds me of people I know of a similar (though less prestigious), background. On top of that the whole system is in such shambles for anything but upholding some ethereal, yet bloodthirsty, competitive oligarchy that it's hard for me to even imagine the court as anything more than a political enforcement arm set up by slave owning rapists. Which also happens to describe the vast majority of law enforcement in this country and the point/system with which we're trying to address problems that weren't viewed as problems to the people who set up the systems. I was trying to make the best version of the liberal argument I could muster but xDaunt /you caught me uninformed about the details. I mean I'd sooner watch him trip into a pit of venomous scorpions than sit on the supreme court, but liberals/Democrats wouldn't support my reasons, and as pretty well demonstrated, their reasons are insufficient. So as I said from the beginning he'll be confirmed with a bipartisan vote and as polling is indicating Democrats will be worse off than before they picked this fight. The general opposition to Kavanaugh is as deranged as the general opposition to Trump. In both cases, the democrats have literally resorted to making shit up about each guy, despite there being plenty of contrast policy-wise. I'd have to go study precisely how this happened, but my suspicion is that this is the natural outgrowth of the Clinton presidency and campaigns of the 1990s. When I read about how xDaunt thinks the Democrats behave, I always see a picture of how I wish they actually were =/ The Democrats jumped at the sexual assault charge because it allows them to attack Kavanaugh for another reason than because they don't believe he has correct policies. They probably think they get bonus points for that, but they don't. On the opposing side, they still get accused of doing exactly that, as xDaunt is displaying here. And on my side, it makes me think that if there was no such history they'd just let him be on the Supreme Court without much of a fight, which is disheartening. I'm a little confused by what you think is inaccurate about my statement about the opposition to Kavanaugh. The slander being pushed by the Democrats has completely consumed all available air space. I'm not convinced that it's slander, but that's not super relevant, I'd hope that Democrats would be opposed to him regardless of those specific accusations based on what he said and what he represents. I'm just concerned that they wouldn't be, as evidenced by Gorsuch - and that's a huge problem. Of course the Democrats are opposed to him regardless of the accusations. They have made that abundantly clear. The Democrats pioneered the politicization of the Court, so why would they stop now? There's nothing abundantly clear about that statement. It makes the situation all around easier if opposing Kavanaugh means you also have morality and righteousness on your side, so it's logical to jump at those sexual conduct accusations or the perjury accusations in an attempt to obtain that. If there's nothing to jump at, would they be jumping? We don't know that. I certainly hope they would, but I can't say I trust them to. What? With the potential exception of a handful of moderates, who else in the Senate is on board with Kavanaugh's brand of jurisprudence? Presumably the same was true for Gorsuch, and they didn't put up much of a fight, wouldn't you agree? A bit of pouting over Garland, and then we moved on.
What exactly do you want them to do? They all voted against Gorsuch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
