|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 02 2018 13:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2018 13:34 On_Slaught wrote:
I wasnt aware they had been proven to be false/fake. This was literally the point of my post. Unless you're getting your news from the future I'm not sure where this is coming from. If that's the case tell me how my Eagles are going to do against the Vikings please so I stress less. The substance of my post is I'm expecting more from you responding to a post of mine beyond "even if" ... this other thing would still be true. I eagerly await the point at which you'll have time to review the video and review my post and comment on the subject of my post, which was Swetnick and allegations of perjury. I can't really sustain anything further on substance if whataboutism is the only menu item on offer, and I'd prefer substance to personalities, as referenced in "I was waiting to see who would do it first and Danglars did not disappoint."
Gotta be honest, D, I was expecting it to be you, too. You're kind of predictable at times.
Everyone here was saying the third allegation needed looking into but we weren't exactly confident about it. It was more defending Avenatti because of his track record. But one shitty allegation has nothing to do with Ford or Ramirez, both of whom seem credible. So you using one bad allegation to sweep two possibly legitimate ones under the rug and proclaim 'we must confirm this lying judge now' is kind of funny.
I don't remember him going on and on about how much he loved beer in his Fox interview. Which is apparently now evidence according to this article.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/brett-kavanaughs-fox-news-interview-731612/
Why are you so keen to confirm a judge who has apparently committed perjury? Why are you so keen to avoid an investigation just to make sure one way or the other? Don't you care about getting the right man for the job?
|
On October 02 2018 17:53 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2018 13:39 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2018 13:34 On_Slaught wrote:
I wasnt aware they had been proven to be false/fake. This was literally the point of my post. Unless you're getting your news from the future I'm not sure where this is coming from. If that's the case tell me how my Eagles are going to do against the Vikings please so I stress less. The substance of my post is I'm expecting more from you responding to a post of mine beyond "even if" ... this other thing would still be true. I eagerly await the point at which you'll have time to review the video and review my post and comment on the subject of my post, which was Swetnick and allegations of perjury. I can't really sustain anything further on substance if whataboutism is the only menu item on offer, and I'd prefer substance to personalities, as referenced in "I was waiting to see who would do it first and Danglars did not disappoint." Gotta be honest, D, I was expecting it to be you, too. You're kind of predictable at times. Everyone here was saying the third allegation needed looking into but we weren't exactly confident about it. It was more defending Avenatti because of his track record. But one shitty allegation has nothing to do with Ford or Ramirez, both of whom seem credible. So you using one bad allegation to sweep two possibly legitimate ones under the rug and proclaim 'we must confirm this lying judge now' is kind of funny. I don't remember him going on and on about how much he loved beer in his Fox interview. Which is apparently now evidence according to this article. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/brett-kavanaughs-fox-news-interview-731612/Why are you so keen to confirm a judge who has apparently committed perjury? Why are you so keen to avoid an investigation just to make sure one way or the other? Don't you care about getting the right man for the job?
The issue is that to the republicans he IS the right man for the job,because he will blindly judge on party lines and is likely in debt to whoever is pulling the strings on many of the republicans.
|
On October 02 2018 15:11 Falling wrote:
Well, thanks for nothing Trump. Now we have your lousy 70 year monopolies held by dead people. I would have preferred to subtract twenty years, but no, now we are adding twenty years in the hopes that dead people will create more stuff.
Any links to this? I'm assuming we're talking about another copyright extension act. As much as I like railing on Trump this would probably have happened unddr any President. Disney is just too frikkin large and has too much frikkin power to not get their way on things like this.
|
On October 02 2018 18:10 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2018 17:53 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 13:39 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2018 13:34 On_Slaught wrote:
I wasnt aware they had been proven to be false/fake. This was literally the point of my post. Unless you're getting your news from the future I'm not sure where this is coming from. If that's the case tell me how my Eagles are going to do against the Vikings please so I stress less. The substance of my post is I'm expecting more from you responding to a post of mine beyond "even if" ... this other thing would still be true. I eagerly await the point at which you'll have time to review the video and review my post and comment on the subject of my post, which was Swetnick and allegations of perjury. I can't really sustain anything further on substance if whataboutism is the only menu item on offer, and I'd prefer substance to personalities, as referenced in "I was waiting to see who would do it first and Danglars did not disappoint." Gotta be honest, D, I was expecting it to be you, too. You're kind of predictable at times. Everyone here was saying the third allegation needed looking into but we weren't exactly confident about it. It was more defending Avenatti because of his track record. But one shitty allegation has nothing to do with Ford or Ramirez, both of whom seem credible. So you using one bad allegation to sweep two possibly legitimate ones under the rug and proclaim 'we must confirm this lying judge now' is kind of funny. I don't remember him going on and on about how much he loved beer in his Fox interview. Which is apparently now evidence according to this article. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/brett-kavanaughs-fox-news-interview-731612/Why are you so keen to confirm a judge who has apparently committed perjury? Why are you so keen to avoid an investigation just to make sure one way or the other? Don't you care about getting the right man for the job? The issue is that to the republicans he IS the right man for the job,because he will blindly judge on party lines and is likely in debt to whoever is pulling the strings on many of the republicans.
Yeah, obviously, but there must be a ton of other options that don't come with this amount of baggage. That's what I don't get. Why Kavanaugh? Why not any other generic Republican-leaning judge? There's tons of them that you can go through. I've seen the lists.
It's just a bull-headed, and wrong-headed, 'we must win' mentality, even with the increasing possibility that these allegations will roll on even past his theoretical confirmation.
Dump him and move on. Let him enjoy his already cushy judge seat, or get taken down if the allegations are confirmed, and move on to someone who isn't going to potentially mire the Supreme Court in scandal.
It's absurd that the performance he gave the other day is considered a positive. And another dark reflection of how the American system is screwed up. He acted with fury and indignation, not dignity and respect. Which two words should be better associated with a judge on the Supreme Court?
|
So the NYT and CNN are reporting Kavanaugh threw an ice cube at someone in 1985.I wish i was making this up.Why not report on real news? No wonder CNN ratings are down 29% past year.
|
That was a story about a bar fight he was involved with. It helps to read the stories and not let networks like Fox explain them to you second hand.
|
Every time I think the lefties are reaching too far I read a Nettles post and remember what true partisan posting looks like.
Good god dude step back outside the bubble and think about the entire situation for one second
|
On October 02 2018 19:46 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2018 18:10 hunts wrote:On October 02 2018 17:53 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 13:39 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2018 13:34 On_Slaught wrote:
I wasnt aware they had been proven to be false/fake. This was literally the point of my post. Unless you're getting your news from the future I'm not sure where this is coming from. If that's the case tell me how my Eagles are going to do against the Vikings please so I stress less. The substance of my post is I'm expecting more from you responding to a post of mine beyond "even if" ... this other thing would still be true. I eagerly await the point at which you'll have time to review the video and review my post and comment on the subject of my post, which was Swetnick and allegations of perjury. I can't really sustain anything further on substance if whataboutism is the only menu item on offer, and I'd prefer substance to personalities, as referenced in "I was waiting to see who would do it first and Danglars did not disappoint." Gotta be honest, D, I was expecting it to be you, too. You're kind of predictable at times. Everyone here was saying the third allegation needed looking into but we weren't exactly confident about it. It was more defending Avenatti because of his track record. But one shitty allegation has nothing to do with Ford or Ramirez, both of whom seem credible. So you using one bad allegation to sweep two possibly legitimate ones under the rug and proclaim 'we must confirm this lying judge now' is kind of funny. I don't remember him going on and on about how much he loved beer in his Fox interview. Which is apparently now evidence according to this article. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/brett-kavanaughs-fox-news-interview-731612/Why are you so keen to confirm a judge who has apparently committed perjury? Why are you so keen to avoid an investigation just to make sure one way or the other? Don't you care about getting the right man for the job? The issue is that to the republicans he IS the right man for the job,because he will blindly judge on party lines and is likely in debt to whoever is pulling the strings on many of the republicans. Yeah, obviously, but there must be a ton of other options that don't come with this amount of baggage. That's what I don't get. Why Kavanaugh? Why not any other generic Republican-leaning judge? There's tons of them that you can go through. I've seen the lists. It's just a bull-headed, and wrong-headed, 'we must win' mentality, even with the increasing possibility that these allegations will roll on even past his theoretical confirmation. Dump him and move on. Let him enjoy his already cushy judge seat, or get taken down if the allegations are confirmed, and move on to someone who isn't going to potentially mire the Supreme Court in scandal. It's absurd that the performance he gave the other day is considered a positive. And another dark reflection of how the American system is screwed up. He acted with fury and indignation, not dignity and respect. Which two words should be better associated with a judge on the Supreme Court?
I'm not really in the loop with all of this but I think it looks like a double edged sword. If the judge is not found guilty and if the FBI somehow finds out that Ford is lying, this is going to be a huge boost for the republicans and the democrats are going to look bad for jumping to conclusions, judging a man because of his wealth, position, and race.
And that last part about fury and indignation seems pretty harsh: imagine yourself being accused of rape if you are innocent (assuming that he is). I can't blame him for responding badly: this kind of accusations can easily destroy your reputation, career and personal life, even if they are never proven (we have seen many cases of this in the wake of the metoo movement in Sweden).
|
The problem with the "you'd be worked up too" argument is that we're talking about a very specific kind of job, one that routinely involves people lashing out with regards to literally matters of life and death. People get sent to life in prison, are fined millions of dollars, or see their assailant walk free, and yet, if litigants mirrored Kav's indignation in response to those matters, they'd get censored and potentially found in contempt very quickly. We aren't talking about some rando dude applying for a rando job here.
The same can be said for the what appear to be numerous instances of perjury; there isn't some get out of perjury free card for having your "good name" run through the mud.
|
If Kavanaugh hadn't thrown a tantrum or lied, his opening statement about "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" is already pretty disqualifying. That bit really should be bigger news, though I guess the rest of his antics buried it. Like sure I'm biased, but that sort of conspiratorial declaration (though likely part of a performance for Trump) is not something I want to see from a SCOTUS nominee. I'm well aware that there are some nutjobs in the lower courts, but not my SCOTUS please.
|
On October 02 2018 21:20 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2018 19:46 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 18:10 hunts wrote:On October 02 2018 17:53 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 13:39 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2018 13:34 On_Slaught wrote:
I wasnt aware they had been proven to be false/fake. This was literally the point of my post. Unless you're getting your news from the future I'm not sure where this is coming from. If that's the case tell me how my Eagles are going to do against the Vikings please so I stress less. The substance of my post is I'm expecting more from you responding to a post of mine beyond "even if" ... this other thing would still be true. I eagerly await the point at which you'll have time to review the video and review my post and comment on the subject of my post, which was Swetnick and allegations of perjury. I can't really sustain anything further on substance if whataboutism is the only menu item on offer, and I'd prefer substance to personalities, as referenced in "I was waiting to see who would do it first and Danglars did not disappoint." Gotta be honest, D, I was expecting it to be you, too. You're kind of predictable at times. Everyone here was saying the third allegation needed looking into but we weren't exactly confident about it. It was more defending Avenatti because of his track record. But one shitty allegation has nothing to do with Ford or Ramirez, both of whom seem credible. So you using one bad allegation to sweep two possibly legitimate ones under the rug and proclaim 'we must confirm this lying judge now' is kind of funny. I don't remember him going on and on about how much he loved beer in his Fox interview. Which is apparently now evidence according to this article. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/brett-kavanaughs-fox-news-interview-731612/Why are you so keen to confirm a judge who has apparently committed perjury? Why are you so keen to avoid an investigation just to make sure one way or the other? Don't you care about getting the right man for the job? The issue is that to the republicans he IS the right man for the job,because he will blindly judge on party lines and is likely in debt to whoever is pulling the strings on many of the republicans. Yeah, obviously, but there must be a ton of other options that don't come with this amount of baggage. That's what I don't get. Why Kavanaugh? Why not any other generic Republican-leaning judge? There's tons of them that you can go through. I've seen the lists. It's just a bull-headed, and wrong-headed, 'we must win' mentality, even with the increasing possibility that these allegations will roll on even past his theoretical confirmation. Dump him and move on. Let him enjoy his already cushy judge seat, or get taken down if the allegations are confirmed, and move on to someone who isn't going to potentially mire the Supreme Court in scandal. It's absurd that the performance he gave the other day is considered a positive. And another dark reflection of how the American system is screwed up. He acted with fury and indignation, not dignity and respect. Which two words should be better associated with a judge on the Supreme Court? I'm not really in the loop with all of this but I think it looks like a double edged sword. If the judge is not found guilty and if the FBI somehow finds out that Ford is lying, this is going to be a huge boost for the republicans and the democrats are going to look bad for jumping to conclusions, judging a man because of his wealth, position, and race. And that last part about fury and indignation seems pretty harsh: imagine yourself being accused of rape if you are innocent (assuming that he is). I can't blame him for responding badly: this kind of accusations can easily destroy your reputation, career and personal life, even if they are never proven (we have seen many cases of this in the wake of the metoo movement in Sweden).
Well democrats have to stick to something. The BK can't be supreme court moving goal post goes along the lines of:
BK is a sexual harraser (no evidence, shady acussers with contradictory testimony) --> BK got midly irritated off of falsely being acussed a rapist, run trough the mud on the media and his family even getting death threats (god that's terrible) --> BK liked to drink a lot and threw ice at someone in high school/college.
Wait until regulars here start poking their eyes out on November. At this point I can assure you the Dems won't clean up as they expected a bit ago, and even taking the Senate is at risk now.
|
Taking the Senate was always a statistically unlikely outcome for Dems and they are still sitting pretty with regards to the House.
|
On October 02 2018 22:11 ticklishmusic wrote:
If Kavanaugh hadn't thrown a tantrum or lied, his opening statement about "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" is already pretty disqualifying. That bit really should be bigger news, though I guess the rest of his antics buried it. Like sure I'm biased, but that sort of conspiratorial declaration (though likely part of a performance for Trump) is not something I want to see from a SCOTUS nominee. I'm well aware that there are some nutjobs in the lower courts, but not my SCOTUS please.
Or whether he worked with Whealen to propose an alternate theory...
Or his odd baseball ticket debt...
Or his previous almost-certainly lies under oath (stolen e-mails)...
There's a lot there and it's probably way too much for the media who likes to just drive single narratives.
|
On October 02 2018 21:36 farvacola wrote:
The problem with the "you'd be worked up too" argument is that we're talking about a very specific kind of job, one that routinely involves people lashing out with regards to literally matters of life and death. People get sent to life in prison, are fined millions of dollars, or see their assailant walk free, and yet, if litigants mirrored Kav's indignation in response to those matters, they'd get censored and potentially found in contempt very quickly. We aren't talking about some rando dude applying for a rando job here.
The same can be said for the what appear to be numerous instances of perjury; there isn't some get out of perjury free card for having your "good name" run through the mud.
Yeah and if he didn't get show any emotion the dems and the media will be running with "BK is obviously a sociopath with no feelings and fits the profile of a sexual offender" or some sort. You are smart, you know they would run with a negative story regardless of how he acted in regards to his character.
The perjury claim has some merit, but not enough. Discussing "drunk levels" it's just too subjective.
|
On October 02 2018 23:22 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2018 21:36 farvacola wrote:
The problem with the "you'd be worked up too" argument is that we're talking about a very specific kind of job, one that routinely involves people lashing out with regards to literally matters of life and death. People get sent to life in prison, are fined millions of dollars, or see their assailant walk free, and yet, if litigants mirrored Kav's indignation in response to those matters, they'd get censored and potentially found in contempt very quickly. We aren't talking about some rando dude applying for a rando job here.
The same can be said for the what appear to be numerous instances of perjury; there isn't some get out of perjury free card for having your "good name" run through the mud. Yeah and if he didn't get show any emotion the dems and the media will be running with "BK is obviously a sociopath with no feelings and fits the profile of a sexual offender" or some sort. You are smart, you know they would run with a negative story regardless of how he acted in regards to his character. The perjury claim has some merit, but not enough. Discussing "drunk levels" it's just too subjective.
There are other potential perjury claims besides whether he's a drunk or not. He made claims about not being in the same social circles as Ford despite both of them claiming to know Chris Garret and he made claims about geographic locations that don't really hold up. Maybe it's not enough to stick a actual perjury claim, but at some point it probably should be close enough to pass on confirming him.
Not to mention all the swept-under-the-rug perjury accusations from earlier confirmation hearings.
|
On October 02 2018 23:17 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2018 21:20 Elroi wrote:On October 02 2018 19:46 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 18:10 hunts wrote:On October 02 2018 17:53 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 13:39 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2018 13:34 On_Slaught wrote:
I wasnt aware they had been proven to be false/fake. This was literally the point of my post. Unless you're getting your news from the future I'm not sure where this is coming from. If that's the case tell me how my Eagles are going to do against the Vikings please so I stress less. The substance of my post is I'm expecting more from you responding to a post of mine beyond "even if" ... this other thing would still be true. I eagerly await the point at which you'll have time to review the video and review my post and comment on the subject of my post, which was Swetnick and allegations of perjury. I can't really sustain anything further on substance if whataboutism is the only menu item on offer, and I'd prefer substance to personalities, as referenced in "I was waiting to see who would do it first and Danglars did not disappoint." Gotta be honest, D, I was expecting it to be you, too. You're kind of predictable at times. Everyone here was saying the third allegation needed looking into but we weren't exactly confident about it. It was more defending Avenatti because of his track record. But one shitty allegation has nothing to do with Ford or Ramirez, both of whom seem credible. So you using one bad allegation to sweep two possibly legitimate ones under the rug and proclaim 'we must confirm this lying judge now' is kind of funny. I don't remember him going on and on about how much he loved beer in his Fox interview. Which is apparently now evidence according to this article. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/brett-kavanaughs-fox-news-interview-731612/Why are you so keen to confirm a judge who has apparently committed perjury? Why are you so keen to avoid an investigation just to make sure one way or the other? Don't you care about getting the right man for the job? The issue is that to the republicans he IS the right man for the job,because he will blindly judge on party lines and is likely in debt to whoever is pulling the strings on many of the republicans. Yeah, obviously, but there must be a ton of other options that don't come with this amount of baggage. That's what I don't get. Why Kavanaugh? Why not any other generic Republican-leaning judge? There's tons of them that you can go through. I've seen the lists. It's just a bull-headed, and wrong-headed, 'we must win' mentality, even with the increasing possibility that these allegations will roll on even past his theoretical confirmation. Dump him and move on. Let him enjoy his already cushy judge seat, or get taken down if the allegations are confirmed, and move on to someone who isn't going to potentially mire the Supreme Court in scandal. It's absurd that the performance he gave the other day is considered a positive. And another dark reflection of how the American system is screwed up. He acted with fury and indignation, not dignity and respect. Which two words should be better associated with a judge on the Supreme Court? I'm not really in the loop with all of this but I think it looks like a double edged sword. If the judge is not found guilty and if the FBI somehow finds out that Ford is lying, this is going to be a huge boost for the republicans and the democrats are going to look bad for jumping to conclusions, judging a man because of his wealth, position, and race. And that last part about fury and indignation seems pretty harsh: imagine yourself being accused of rape if you are innocent (assuming that he is). I can't blame him for responding badly: this kind of accusations can easily destroy your reputation, career and personal life, even if they are never proven (we have seen many cases of this in the wake of the metoo movement in Sweden). Well democrats have to stick to something. The BK can't be supreme court moving goal post goes along the lines of: BK is a sexual harraser (no evidence, shady acussers with contradictory testimony) --> BK got midly irritated off of falsely being acussed a rapist, run trough the mud on the media and his family even getting death threats (god that's terrible) --> BK liked to drink a lot and threw ice at someone in high school/college. Wait until regulars here start poking their eyes out on November. At this point I can assure you the Dems won't clean up as they expected a bit ago, and even taking the Senate is at risk now.
Have you heard the story of the Bill Clinton investigation which went from investigating a real estate deal (Whitewater) to him getting a blowjob? Or the Hillary Clinton investigation which went from Benghazi to emails?
|
On October 02 2018 23:22 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2018 21:36 farvacola wrote:
The problem with the "you'd be worked up too" argument is that we're talking about a very specific kind of job, one that routinely involves people lashing out with regards to literally matters of life and death. People get sent to life in prison, are fined millions of dollars, or see their assailant walk free, and yet, if litigants mirrored Kav's indignation in response to those matters, they'd get censored and potentially found in contempt very quickly. We aren't talking about some rando dude applying for a rando job here.
The same can be said for the what appear to be numerous instances of perjury; there isn't some get out of perjury free card for having your "good name" run through the mud. Yeah and if he didn't get show any emotion the dems and the media will be running with "BK is obviously a sociopath with no feelings and fits the profile of a sexual offender" or some sort. You are smart, you know they would run with a negative story regardless of how he acted in regards to his character. The perjury claim has some merit, but not enough. Discussing "drunk levels" it's just too subjective.
Meh, I'm not interested in that hypothetical because an austere, non-emotional reaction from Kav would have been precisely the thing that killed pretty much all claims against him outside the sexual assault claims. Instead, he got riled up, said some extremely non-judicious things about Clintonite conspiracies, and seems to have perjured himself numerous times. Among liberal lawyer folk I know, his performance at the hearing drastically overshadows the sexual assault allegations in terms of showing disqualifying behavior. That media outlets would try to run a story no matter his performance is true, but the sun also rises, so to speak.
|
On October 02 2018 23:22 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2018 21:36 farvacola wrote:
The problem with the "you'd be worked up too" argument is that we're talking about a very specific kind of job, one that routinely involves people lashing out with regards to literally matters of life and death. People get sent to life in prison, are fined millions of dollars, or see their assailant walk free, and yet, if litigants mirrored Kav's indignation in response to those matters, they'd get censored and potentially found in contempt very quickly. We aren't talking about some rando dude applying for a rando job here.
The same can be said for the what appear to be numerous instances of perjury; there isn't some get out of perjury free card for having your "good name" run through the mud. Yeah and if he didn't get show any emotion the dems and the media will be running with "BK is obviously a sociopath with no feelings and fits the profile of a sexual offender" or some sort. You are smart, you know they would run with a negative story regardless of how he acted in regards to his character. The perjury claim has some merit, but not enough. Discussing "drunk levels" it's just too subjective. Even ignoring everything else, I'm pretty damn sure they can find a SC nominee who doesn't have perjury claims of some merit.
How about we get someone better for the most important judicial position then "meh, probably good enough'.
|
On October 02 2018 23:27 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2018 23:17 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 02 2018 21:20 Elroi wrote:On October 02 2018 19:46 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 18:10 hunts wrote:On October 02 2018 17:53 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 13:39 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2018 13:34 On_Slaught wrote:
I wasnt aware they had been proven to be false/fake. This was literally the point of my post. Unless you're getting your news from the future I'm not sure where this is coming from. If that's the case tell me how my Eagles are going to do against the Vikings please so I stress less. The substance of my post is I'm expecting more from you responding to a post of mine beyond "even if" ... this other thing would still be true. I eagerly await the point at which you'll have time to review the video and review my post and comment on the subject of my post, which was Swetnick and allegations of perjury. I can't really sustain anything further on substance if whataboutism is the only menu item on offer, and I'd prefer substance to personalities, as referenced in "I was waiting to see who would do it first and Danglars did not disappoint." Gotta be honest, D, I was expecting it to be you, too. You're kind of predictable at times. Everyone here was saying the third allegation needed looking into but we weren't exactly confident about it. It was more defending Avenatti because of his track record. But one shitty allegation has nothing to do with Ford or Ramirez, both of whom seem credible. So you using one bad allegation to sweep two possibly legitimate ones under the rug and proclaim 'we must confirm this lying judge now' is kind of funny. I don't remember him going on and on about how much he loved beer in his Fox interview. Which is apparently now evidence according to this article. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/brett-kavanaughs-fox-news-interview-731612/Why are you so keen to confirm a judge who has apparently committed perjury? Why are you so keen to avoid an investigation just to make sure one way or the other? Don't you care about getting the right man for the job? The issue is that to the republicans he IS the right man for the job,because he will blindly judge on party lines and is likely in debt to whoever is pulling the strings on many of the republicans. Yeah, obviously, but there must be a ton of other options that don't come with this amount of baggage. That's what I don't get. Why Kavanaugh? Why not any other generic Republican-leaning judge? There's tons of them that you can go through. I've seen the lists. It's just a bull-headed, and wrong-headed, 'we must win' mentality, even with the increasing possibility that these allegations will roll on even past his theoretical confirmation. Dump him and move on. Let him enjoy his already cushy judge seat, or get taken down if the allegations are confirmed, and move on to someone who isn't going to potentially mire the Supreme Court in scandal. It's absurd that the performance he gave the other day is considered a positive. And another dark reflection of how the American system is screwed up. He acted with fury and indignation, not dignity and respect. Which two words should be better associated with a judge on the Supreme Court? I'm not really in the loop with all of this but I think it looks like a double edged sword. If the judge is not found guilty and if the FBI somehow finds out that Ford is lying, this is going to be a huge boost for the republicans and the democrats are going to look bad for jumping to conclusions, judging a man because of his wealth, position, and race. And that last part about fury and indignation seems pretty harsh: imagine yourself being accused of rape if you are innocent (assuming that he is). I can't blame him for responding badly: this kind of accusations can easily destroy your reputation, career and personal life, even if they are never proven (we have seen many cases of this in the wake of the metoo movement in Sweden). Well democrats have to stick to something. The BK can't be supreme court moving goal post goes along the lines of: BK is a sexual harraser (no evidence, shady acussers with contradictory testimony) --> BK got midly irritated off of falsely being acussed a rapist, run trough the mud on the media and his family even getting death threats (god that's terrible) --> BK liked to drink a lot and threw ice at someone in high school/college. Wait until regulars here start poking their eyes out on November. At this point I can assure you the Dems won't clean up as they expected a bit ago, and even taking the Senate is at risk now. Have you heard the story of the Bill Clinton investigation which went from investigating a real estate deal (Whitewater) to him getting a blowjob? Or the Hillary Clinton investigation which went from Benghazi to emails?
Well Bill Clinton was indeed a sexual abuser and likely a rapist WHILE in office. I know people died in Benghazi, but I'm unsure of the circumstances to comment on that.
That Republicans doing something before doesn't mean the democrats aren't doing it now so I don't understand what it has to do with anything.
|
On October 02 2018 23:30 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2018 23:27 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 02 2018 23:17 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 02 2018 21:20 Elroi wrote:On October 02 2018 19:46 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 18:10 hunts wrote:On October 02 2018 17:53 iamthedave wrote:On October 02 2018 13:39 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2018 13:34 On_Slaught wrote:
I wasnt aware they had been proven to be false/fake. This was literally the point of my post. Unless you're getting your news from the future I'm not sure where this is coming from. If that's the case tell me how my Eagles are going to do against the Vikings please so I stress less. The substance of my post is I'm expecting more from you responding to a post of mine beyond "even if" ... this other thing would still be true. I eagerly await the point at which you'll have time to review the video and review my post and comment on the subject of my post, which was Swetnick and allegations of perjury. I can't really sustain anything further on substance if whataboutism is the only menu item on offer, and I'd prefer substance to personalities, as referenced in "I was waiting to see who would do it first and Danglars did not disappoint." Gotta be honest, D, I was expecting it to be you, too. You're kind of predictable at times. Everyone here was saying the third allegation needed looking into but we weren't exactly confident about it. It was more defending Avenatti because of his track record. But one shitty allegation has nothing to do with Ford or Ramirez, both of whom seem credible. So you using one bad allegation to sweep two possibly legitimate ones under the rug and proclaim 'we must confirm this lying judge now' is kind of funny. I don't remember him going on and on about how much he loved beer in his Fox interview. Which is apparently now evidence according to this article. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/brett-kavanaughs-fox-news-interview-731612/Why are you so keen to confirm a judge who has apparently committed perjury? Why are you so keen to avoid an investigation just to make sure one way or the other? Don't you care about getting the right man for the job? The issue is that to the republicans he IS the right man for the job,because he will blindly judge on party lines and is likely in debt to whoever is pulling the strings on many of the republicans. Yeah, obviously, but there must be a ton of other options that don't come with this amount of baggage. That's what I don't get. Why Kavanaugh? Why not any other generic Republican-leaning judge? There's tons of them that you can go through. I've seen the lists. It's just a bull-headed, and wrong-headed, 'we must win' mentality, even with the increasing possibility that these allegations will roll on even past his theoretical confirmation. Dump him and move on. Let him enjoy his already cushy judge seat, or get taken down if the allegations are confirmed, and move on to someone who isn't going to potentially mire the Supreme Court in scandal. It's absurd that the performance he gave the other day is considered a positive. And another dark reflection of how the American system is screwed up. He acted with fury and indignation, not dignity and respect. Which two words should be better associated with a judge on the Supreme Court? I'm not really in the loop with all of this but I think it looks like a double edged sword. If the judge is not found guilty and if the FBI somehow finds out that Ford is lying, this is going to be a huge boost for the republicans and the democrats are going to look bad for jumping to conclusions, judging a man because of his wealth, position, and race. And that last part about fury and indignation seems pretty harsh: imagine yourself being accused of rape if you are innocent (assuming that he is). I can't blame him for responding badly: this kind of accusations can easily destroy your reputation, career and personal life, even if they are never proven (we have seen many cases of this in the wake of the metoo movement in Sweden). Well democrats have to stick to something. The BK can't be supreme court moving goal post goes along the lines of: BK is a sexual harraser (no evidence, shady acussers with contradictory testimony) --> BK got midly irritated off of falsely being acussed a rapist, run trough the mud on the media and his family even getting death threats (god that's terrible) --> BK liked to drink a lot and threw ice at someone in high school/college. Wait until regulars here start poking their eyes out on November. At this point I can assure you the Dems won't clean up as they expected a bit ago, and even taking the Senate is at risk now. Have you heard the story of the Bill Clinton investigation which went from investigating a real estate deal (Whitewater) to him getting a blowjob? Or the Hillary Clinton investigation which went from Benghazi to emails? Well Bill Clinton was indeed a sexual abuser and likely a rapist WHILE in office. I know people died in Benghazi, but I'm unsure of the circumstances to comment on that. That Republicans doing something before doesn't mean the democrats aren't doing it now so I don't understand what it has to do with anything.
Source on him being a sexual abuser and rapist? Or you just spreading some more conspiracy shit? Yea, he got a blowjob in office, but you should also know what the word consensual means...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
