|
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 05 2018 06:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 06:04 KR_4EVR wrote:On October 05 2018 06:01 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 05:58 KR_4EVR wrote:On October 05 2018 05:55 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 05:24 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2018 05:14 JimmiC wrote:
To people happy that it looks like BK will be appointed. Why should I be happy with that, what is it about him that will make the supreme court better? I was very underwhelmed with his performance at the senate hearings and would love to hear what is great about him.
Dems please refrain from saying why you think the others are excited. I know why you are not. if I remember I'll answer later. but quickly, he wasn't my favorite, but after this smear job he must be confirmed. This garbage cannot be rewarded. so in that sense, I will be very happy. and it seems like many agree, the right hasn't been this united in a while. Now, to keep it that way for the next month. There is no smear job when there's an unprecedented level of professional resistance (e.g. law professors, judges, former justices) against his confirmation. You just lack the intellectual integrity to see beyond your own pathetic bias. By your logic the Jews sent to the concentration camps had no right to complain about being abused because the universities had already certified that Jews were an inferior race. Law professors and former supreme court justices are the Nazi party now? Sure you don’t want to rethink this very bad argument? Let me rephrase things so we speak a less charged language. The original claim made was along the lines of: Since party A was maligned by party B AND party C also maligned party A, that absolves party B of maligning party A even if only party C is credible and party A isn't. I'm saying that's bogus. Each allegation needs to be dealt with on its own terms. Two half-credible objections do not add to a credible objection. There is only 1 objection needed and that stands entirely on its own. Kavanaugh acted unbefitting of a SC judge. The end.
Ginsberg wasn’t Sober during the SOTU a few years back and even appeared to be sleeping through part of it! But because she votes “the right way” noone gives a damn?
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/ruth-bader-ginsburg-napping-alcohol-sotu-115172
Tick Tock Ginsberg!.....
|
|
|
|
|
Scuse me for just a moment but can it really be possible that the leader of the free world just publically boarded a plane with a piece of fucking TP hanging off his shoe?
I would like to believe that this isn't true
|
On October 05 2018 11:11 Indrajit wrote:
Scuse me for just a moment but can it really be possible that the leader of the free world just publically boarded a plane with a piece of fucking TP hanging off his shoe?
I would like to believe that this isn't true
Lol just looked it up. Disgustingly, it came off his shoe at the top of the stairs and laid there.
Really hope this tax crime story gets revived in some way. The NYT proved that not only did Trump get started with daddy's money and get bailed out of bankruptcy with daddy's money, he required regular cash infusions from daddy to stay afloat even when he was not on the brink of bankruptcy. This confirms that he was basically always propped up on deception when it comes to being a businessman. Interestingly, by 2004 daddy's money had dried up. Two years later, the Trump Org began making enormous real estate purchases in all cash, something it hadn't done before. Hopefully reporters are able to figure out where the cash came from, because it didn't come from legitimate places.
|
On October 05 2018 11:30 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 11:11 Indrajit wrote:
Scuse me for just a moment but can it really be possible that the leader of the free world just publically boarded a plane with a piece of fucking TP hanging off his shoe?
I would like to believe that this isn't true Lol just looked it up. Disgustingly, it came off his shoe at the top of the stairs and laid there. Really hope this tax crime story gets revived in some way. The NYT proved that not only did Trump get started with daddy's money and get bailed out of bankruptcy with daddy's money, he required regular cash infusions from daddy to stay afloat even when he was not on the brink of bankruptcy. This confirms that he was basically always propped up on deception when it comes to being a businessman. Interestingly, by 2004 daddy's money had dried up. Two years later, the Trump Org began making enormous real estate purchases in all cash, something it hadn't done before. Hopefully reporters are able to figure out where the cash came from, because it didn't come from legitimate places.
That all sounds great.
Given that I come from a hostile position to this asshole, I'm good enough with a little public humiliation. Anything to say HEY DIPSTICK, WAKE UP. YOU ARE THE LAUGHINGSSTOCK OF THE UNIVERSE" would work.
I doubt it but hey I can dream
|
This contributes nothing to the conversations being had other than being politically relevant and hilarious.
https://www.brettkavanaugh.beer/
User was warned for this post
User was temp banned for this post: mod history of low content posting in this thread
|
On October 05 2018 10:47 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 10:39 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 05 2018 06:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 05 2018 06:04 KR_4EVR wrote:On October 05 2018 06:01 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 05:58 KR_4EVR wrote:On October 05 2018 05:55 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 05:24 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2018 05:14 JimmiC wrote:
To people happy that it looks like BK will be appointed. Why should I be happy with that, what is it about him that will make the supreme court better? I was very underwhelmed with his performance at the senate hearings and would love to hear what is great about him.
Dems please refrain from saying why you think the others are excited. I know why you are not. if I remember I'll answer later. but quickly, he wasn't my favorite, but after this smear job he must be confirmed. This garbage cannot be rewarded. so in that sense, I will be very happy. and it seems like many agree, the right hasn't been this united in a while. Now, to keep it that way for the next month. There is no smear job when there's an unprecedented level of professional resistance (e.g. law professors, judges, former justices) against his confirmation. You just lack the intellectual integrity to see beyond your own pathetic bias. By your logic the Jews sent to the concentration camps had no right to complain about being abused because the universities had already certified that Jews were an inferior race. Law professors and former supreme court justices are the Nazi party now? Sure you don’t want to rethink this very bad argument? Let me rephrase things so we speak a less charged language. The original claim made was along the lines of: Since party A was maligned by party B AND party C also maligned party A, that absolves party B of maligning party A even if only party C is credible and party A isn't. I'm saying that's bogus. Each allegation needs to be dealt with on its own terms. Two half-credible objections do not add to a credible objection. There is only 1 objection needed and that stands entirely on its own. Kavanaugh acted unbefitting of a SC judge. The end. Ginsberg wasn’t Sober during the SOTU a few years back and even appeared to be sleeping through part of it! But because she votes “the right way” noone gives a damn? https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/ruth-bader-ginsburg-napping-alcohol-sotu-115172Tick Tock Ginsberg!..... No one cares because she admitted it, a far more embarrassing thing than what BK is lying about. No one cares that people drink, BK made it a issue by saying he didn't. This is not complicated, please catch up.
He said he liked beer and often drank.
“We drank beer and sometimes had too many”
Plus i’d say, big difference between having a few beers 35+ years ago in college and having drinks before the supreme court is seated listening to the president speak, causing you to nap.
|
On October 05 2018 11:42 Ayaz2810 wrote:This contributes nothing to the conversations being had other than being politically relevant and hilarious. https://www.brettkavanaugh.beer/User was warned for this post
I guess you can post memes unmoderated as long as you follow TL party lines 
Edit: NVM I apologize 
User was temp banned for this post: mod history of low content posting in this thread
|
|
|
On October 05 2018 11:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 10:47 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2018 10:39 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 05 2018 06:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 05 2018 06:04 KR_4EVR wrote:On October 05 2018 06:01 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 05:58 KR_4EVR wrote:On October 05 2018 05:55 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 05:24 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2018 05:14 JimmiC wrote:
To people happy that it looks like BK will be appointed. Why should I be happy with that, what is it about him that will make the supreme court better? I was very underwhelmed with his performance at the senate hearings and would love to hear what is great about him.
Dems please refrain from saying why you think the others are excited. I know why you are not. if I remember I'll answer later. but quickly, he wasn't my favorite, but after this smear job he must be confirmed. This garbage cannot be rewarded. so in that sense, I will be very happy. and it seems like many agree, the right hasn't been this united in a while. Now, to keep it that way for the next month. There is no smear job when there's an unprecedented level of professional resistance (e.g. law professors, judges, former justices) against his confirmation. You just lack the intellectual integrity to see beyond your own pathetic bias. By your logic the Jews sent to the concentration camps had no right to complain about being abused because the universities had already certified that Jews were an inferior race. Law professors and former supreme court justices are the Nazi party now? Sure you don’t want to rethink this very bad argument? Let me rephrase things so we speak a less charged language. The original claim made was along the lines of: Since party A was maligned by party B AND party C also maligned party A, that absolves party B of maligning party A even if only party C is credible and party A isn't. I'm saying that's bogus. Each allegation needs to be dealt with on its own terms. Two half-credible objections do not add to a credible objection. There is only 1 objection needed and that stands entirely on its own. Kavanaugh acted unbefitting of a SC judge. The end. Ginsberg wasn’t Sober during the SOTU a few years back and even appeared to be sleeping through part of it! But because she votes “the right way” noone gives a damn? https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/ruth-bader-ginsburg-napping-alcohol-sotu-115172Tick Tock Ginsberg!..... No one cares because she admitted it, a far more embarrassing thing than what BK is lying about. No one cares that people drink, BK made it a issue by saying he didn't. This is not complicated, please catch up. He said he liked beer and often drank. “We drank beer and sometimes had too many” Plus i’d say, big difference between having a few beers 35+ years ago in college and having drinks before the supreme court is seated listening to the president speak, causing you to nap.
The guy lied under oath about several things and has a temperament completely unfit to be a SC justice.
You are either actually this clueless or just being intentionally dense to be a troll.
|
On October 05 2018 12:07 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 11:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 05 2018 10:47 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2018 10:39 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 05 2018 06:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 05 2018 06:04 KR_4EVR wrote:On October 05 2018 06:01 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 05:58 KR_4EVR wrote:On October 05 2018 05:55 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 05:24 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
if I remember I'll answer later. but quickly, he wasn't my favorite, but after this smear job he must be confirmed. This garbage cannot be rewarded. so in that sense, I will be very happy. and it seems like many agree, the right hasn't been this united in a while. Now, to keep it that way for the next month. There is no smear job when there's an unprecedented level of professional resistance (e.g. law professors, judges, former justices) against his confirmation. You just lack the intellectual integrity to see beyond your own pathetic bias. By your logic the Jews sent to the concentration camps had no right to complain about being abused because the universities had already certified that Jews were an inferior race. Law professors and former supreme court justices are the Nazi party now? Sure you don’t want to rethink this very bad argument? Let me rephrase things so we speak a less charged language. The original claim made was along the lines of: Since party A was maligned by party B AND party C also maligned party A, that absolves party B of maligning party A even if only party C is credible and party A isn't. I'm saying that's bogus. Each allegation needs to be dealt with on its own terms. Two half-credible objections do not add to a credible objection. There is only 1 objection needed and that stands entirely on its own. Kavanaugh acted unbefitting of a SC judge. The end. Ginsberg wasn’t Sober during the SOTU a few years back and even appeared to be sleeping through part of it! But because she votes “the right way” noone gives a damn? https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/ruth-bader-ginsburg-napping-alcohol-sotu-115172Tick Tock Ginsberg!..... No one cares because she admitted it, a far more embarrassing thing than what BK is lying about. No one cares that people drink, BK made it a issue by saying he didn't. This is not complicated, please catch up. He said he liked beer and often drank. “We drank beer and sometimes had too many” Plus i’d say, big difference between having a few beers 35+ years ago in college and having drinks before the supreme court is seated listening to the president speak, causing you to nap. He's likely getting in, you can stop pretending it was a couple. But again, not sure how much clearer I can be. There is no issue with BK's drinking. There is issues with him lying about it under oath.
What statement was a lie?
edit: oh yes, I was going to answer the question quoted below. oh well. but the answer given below is a good one. Also add that before this garbage he was incredibly well respected and known as being decent, temperate, well-prepared, and intellectual. He has quite a few citations and affirmed opinions at the Supreme Court, taught/teaches at Harvard and Yale, and sends a very large number of clerks to SC Justices (both liberal and conservative Justices),etc. I think I read that this term both Gorsuch and Breyer have a former Kavanaugh clerk with them. Last term four Justices had one. It's only one metric, but normally that's thought to speak well of a judge. I don't know where the idea that he was a third rate judge came from... before we entered into the culture war aspect of this he was known, as I said above, as being a model judge. Someone posited that Kavanaugh v. Kagan could become the new Scalia v. Brennan, in terms of leading their "side", and I sincerely hope it's true, even if he isn't the most conservative person that could have been picked.
|
On October 05 2018 05:14 JimmiC wrote:
To people happy that it looks like BK will be appointed. Why should I be happy with that, what is it about him that will make the supreme court better? I was very underwhelmed with his performance at the senate hearings and would love to hear what is great about him.
Dems please refrain from saying why you think the others are excited. I know why you are not.
Why should you be pleased, or why should people who support him be pleased? Two very different questions. If you are not conservative or don't typically agree with conservative ideas and you don't feel as though the most recent attacks on him were unfair then you probably shouldn't be pleased if he is confirmed. If you are a conservative then you should be pleased because Kavanaugh is a strong conservative on most issues, and while he does have some questionable opinions on presidential authority and constitutional protections, he is much further to the right than Anthony Kennedy and will create a dependable 5-4 split toward conservatism on the Court. He is very qualified, as far as experience and employment history, he has a very large pool of legal opinions so he's not an unknown quantity, and given the contentious nature of his confirmation process, he has very little reason to "swing left" as many justices appointed by Republican presidents in the past have done. The general consensus that he is emotional or partisan can be reasonably countered with the fact that he was confronted with extraordinary personal attacks of a partisan nature, and therefore can be reasonably construed as having an excuse for his behavior (if you even think said behavior was unfitting for a Supreme Court Justice, which is debatable). Given his history of general conservatism, his credentials, his relative youth, and his personality, it is likely that he will be a very good replacement (from a Republican perspective) to Justice Kennedy. Granted, this is all dependent on a perspective of a conservative. For a liberal or in some cases, a moderate, this appointment will be disastrous. For someone who doesn't have strong political opinions at all, this specific appointment will be largely irrelevant as Kavanaugh will presumably go the conservative route 99+% of the time which is no different than any other candidate a President Trump would realistically have chosen. Perhaps it could also be mentioned that from the conservative point of view, this is a moral victory over what they perceive as an unfair assault on a man's credibility and a general assault on due-process; though that would be rather contentious and really just depends on how you view Dr. Ford's allegations vs. Kavanaugh's defense.
|
On October 05 2018 12:38 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 12:07 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2018 11:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 05 2018 10:47 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2018 10:39 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 05 2018 06:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 05 2018 06:04 KR_4EVR wrote:On October 05 2018 06:01 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 05:58 KR_4EVR wrote:On October 05 2018 05:55 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
There is no smear job when there's an unprecedented level of professional resistance (e.g. law professors, judges, former justices) against his confirmation.
You just lack the intellectual integrity to see beyond your own pathetic bias. By your logic the Jews sent to the concentration camps had no right to complain about being abused because the universities had already certified that Jews were an inferior race. Law professors and former supreme court justices are the Nazi party now? Sure you don’t want to rethink this very bad argument? Let me rephrase things so we speak a less charged language. The original claim made was along the lines of: Since party A was maligned by party B AND party C also maligned party A, that absolves party B of maligning party A even if only party C is credible and party A isn't. I'm saying that's bogus. Each allegation needs to be dealt with on its own terms. Two half-credible objections do not add to a credible objection. There is only 1 objection needed and that stands entirely on its own. Kavanaugh acted unbefitting of a SC judge. The end. Ginsberg wasn’t Sober during the SOTU a few years back and even appeared to be sleeping through part of it! But because she votes “the right way” noone gives a damn? https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/ruth-bader-ginsburg-napping-alcohol-sotu-115172Tick Tock Ginsberg!..... No one cares because she admitted it, a far more embarrassing thing than what BK is lying about. No one cares that people drink, BK made it a issue by saying he didn't. This is not complicated, please catch up. He said he liked beer and often drank. “We drank beer and sometimes had too many” Plus i’d say, big difference between having a few beers 35+ years ago in college and having drinks before the supreme court is seated listening to the president speak, causing you to nap. He's likely getting in, you can stop pretending it was a couple. But again, not sure how much clearer I can be. There is no issue with BK's drinking. There is issues with him lying about it under oath. What statement was a lie?
Here's 10 for ya.
1. BK says in 2004 that he did not "personally" handle the judicial nomination of Judge Pryor and he "was not involved in the handling of his nomination." HOWEVER, emails show that he was involved in it before then. 4 emails show he is a liar. One, from 2003, literally was called "Pryor Working Group Contact List" which states that he should give the sender the contact info of "other person/groups that are going to be involved." The second literally says "Brett, at your request, I asked Matt to speak with Pryor about his interest" and that they should continue to discuss the matter going forward; The third shows he was sent an email saying there would be a meeting the following day about the Pryor nomination. Forth is an email he was sent inviting him to a conference call to coordinate Judge Pryors nomination. Copies of the emails below for reference.
+ Show Spoiler +
2. BK said in 2004 that he had never received any of the stolen Democratic documents by Miranda. HOWEVER, new email leaks show he absolutely "received" them.
+ Show Spoiler +
3. BK said in 2006 that he was not involved in the legal questions around detaining/torturing enemy combatants. HOWEVER, he recently admitted he was involved in discussions about access to counsel for detainees when meeting with Durbin. Durbin also claims there are emails that "support that fact."
+ Show Spoiler +
4. BK said last week that he had never been blackout drunk. Of course it's obvious to everyone why he has to say this. If he admitted to this then it would open the door to the possibility that Ford was telling the truth and he simply didn't remember. HOWEVER, there are a number of people coming out to say that this is flatly untrue. Their experiences with BK were with someone who would get drunk to the point of incoherence. Frankly, I don't even need their accounts to know this is bullshit. I'm not stupid or naive enough to believe that somebody who drank as much as this guy did (and whose best friend was an alcoholic) never drank to the point of blackout. Also, his friend Judge admits to getting blackout drunk back in high school in his book. Anyone really believe his best friend and drinking buddy wasn't doing the same? This is pure cover.
5. BK said last week that Bart O'Kavanaugh was a fictionalized character. HOWEVER, we now know his nickname back then was Bart. Also, the book references him puking after being drunk, something he not only admitted to being a regular occurrence in the hearings themselves but also in his 1983 letter. The reference to Bart in the book? Says he was "passed out after drinking." Obvious why he wouldn't be upfront about this.
6. BK said multiple times last week that all 4 people at the party said what Ford claimed never happened. HOWEVER, this is a misrepresentation of the facts resulting in a lie. What they said was they did not remember this happening.
7. BK said last week that "I have never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation." HOWEVER, Ford simply describes a small gathering of friends with drinking. His own calendar shows these sorts of gatherings are were not uncommon. Why deflect something so simple? Why not just say "sure I went to some house parties like this but I don't remember this one?" It simply isn't credible that he "never attended" a gathering like the one Ford described.
8. BK said about Ford's claims last week that "[N]one of those gatherings included the group of people that Dr. Ford has identified. And as my calendars show, I was very precise about listing who was there; very precise." HOWEVER, Ford said that Mark Judge and PJ were there. We know MJ was his friend but his calendar also says on his July 1 calendar entry that he was hanging with PJ. That's 2 of the 3 men Ford said were at the party.
+ Show Spoiler +
9. BK said he got into Yale without connections. HOWEVER, we know his grandfather attended Yale, making him a legacy student.
10. BK, through his lawyer, said as part of his explanation of Renate Alumni, that he had merely kissed Renate. HOWEVER, she says they never kissed. It's worth noting that apparently in one of the other 'Renate Alumni' kids yearbooks it says "You need a date / and it’s getting late / so don’t hesitate / to call Renate." Not exactly something you'd expect to see if these kids and her were telling the truth about their promiscuity, but whatever.
This doesn't even include things like his involvement of the Pickering judicial nomination and the legal questions behind warrantless wiretapping. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more people could point out. Guy is bad news and the legal community, at least, knows it.
This article goes into a lot more of the fishy stuff and absurd deflections in many of his answers. His deflections are embarrassing when you dig into them. Nobody acts like this unless they have a guilty conscious and/or are trying to cover-up something.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying
|
On October 05 2018 11:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 10:47 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2018 10:39 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 05 2018 06:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 05 2018 06:04 KR_4EVR wrote:On October 05 2018 06:01 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 05:58 KR_4EVR wrote:On October 05 2018 05:55 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 05:24 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2018 05:14 JimmiC wrote:
To people happy that it looks like BK will be appointed. Why should I be happy with that, what is it about him that will make the supreme court better? I was very underwhelmed with his performance at the senate hearings and would love to hear what is great about him.
Dems please refrain from saying why you think the others are excited. I know why you are not. if I remember I'll answer later. but quickly, he wasn't my favorite, but after this smear job he must be confirmed. This garbage cannot be rewarded. so in that sense, I will be very happy. and it seems like many agree, the right hasn't been this united in a while. Now, to keep it that way for the next month. There is no smear job when there's an unprecedented level of professional resistance (e.g. law professors, judges, former justices) against his confirmation. You just lack the intellectual integrity to see beyond your own pathetic bias. By your logic the Jews sent to the concentration camps had no right to complain about being abused because the universities had already certified that Jews were an inferior race. Law professors and former supreme court justices are the Nazi party now? Sure you don’t want to rethink this very bad argument? Let me rephrase things so we speak a less charged language. The original claim made was along the lines of: Since party A was maligned by party B AND party C also maligned party A, that absolves party B of maligning party A even if only party C is credible and party A isn't. I'm saying that's bogus. Each allegation needs to be dealt with on its own terms. Two half-credible objections do not add to a credible objection. There is only 1 objection needed and that stands entirely on its own. Kavanaugh acted unbefitting of a SC judge. The end. Ginsberg wasn’t Sober during the SOTU a few years back and even appeared to be sleeping through part of it! But because she votes “the right way” noone gives a damn? https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/ruth-bader-ginsburg-napping-alcohol-sotu-115172Tick Tock Ginsberg!..... No one cares because she admitted it, a far more embarrassing thing than what BK is lying about. No one cares that people drink, BK made it a issue by saying he didn't. This is not complicated, please catch up. He said he liked beer and often drank. “We drank beer and sometimes had too many” Plus i’d say, big difference between having a few beers 35+ years ago in college and having drinks before the supreme court is seated listening to the president speak, causing you to nap.
Hint: it's not the getting drunk people are upset about.
Also, Ginsberg isn't being interviewed for the job, she's already had it for quite a while now. If you think she should be impeached for being drunk, make your case. I'm sure it'll be great.
In the meantime tho, try to stop comparing apples and oranges.
|
On October 05 2018 15:54 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 12:38 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2018 12:07 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2018 11:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 05 2018 10:47 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2018 10:39 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 05 2018 06:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 05 2018 06:04 KR_4EVR wrote:On October 05 2018 06:01 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 05:58 KR_4EVR wrote:
[quote]
By your logic the Jews sent to the concentration camps had no right to complain about being abused because the universities had already certified that Jews were an inferior race. Law professors and former supreme court justices are the Nazi party now? Sure you don’t want to rethink this very bad argument? Let me rephrase things so we speak a less charged language. The original claim made was along the lines of: Since party A was maligned by party B AND party C also maligned party A, that absolves party B of maligning party A even if only party C is credible and party A isn't. I'm saying that's bogus. Each allegation needs to be dealt with on its own terms. Two half-credible objections do not add to a credible objection. There is only 1 objection needed and that stands entirely on its own. Kavanaugh acted unbefitting of a SC judge. The end. Ginsberg wasn’t Sober during the SOTU a few years back and even appeared to be sleeping through part of it! But because she votes “the right way” noone gives a damn? https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/ruth-bader-ginsburg-napping-alcohol-sotu-115172Tick Tock Ginsberg!..... No one cares because she admitted it, a far more embarrassing thing than what BK is lying about. No one cares that people drink, BK made it a issue by saying he didn't. This is not complicated, please catch up. He said he liked beer and often drank. “We drank beer and sometimes had too many” Plus i’d say, big difference between having a few beers 35+ years ago in college and having drinks before the supreme court is seated listening to the president speak, causing you to nap. He's likely getting in, you can stop pretending it was a couple. But again, not sure how much clearer I can be. There is no issue with BK's drinking. There is issues with him lying about it under oath. What statement was a lie? Here's 10 for ya. 1. BK says in 2004 that he did not "personally" handle the judicial nomination of Judge Pryor and he "was not involved in the handling of his nomination." HOWEVER, emails show that he was involved in it before then. 3 emails show he is a liar. One, from 2003, literally was called "Pryor Working Group Contact List" which states that he should give the sender the contact info of "other person/groups that are going to be involved." The second literally says "Brett, at your request, I asked Matt to speak with Pryor about his interest" and that they should continue to discuss the matter going forward; The third shows he was sent an email saying there would be a meeting the following day about the Pryor nomination. Forth is an email he was sent inviting him to a conference call to coordinate Judge Pryors nomination. Copies of the emails below for reference. + Show Spoiler +2. BK said in 2004 that he had never received any of the stolen Democratic documents by Miranda. HOWEVER, new email leaks show he absolutely "received" them. + Show Spoiler +3. BK said in 2006 that he was not involved in the legal questions around detaining/torturing enemy combatants. HOWEVER, he recently admitted he was involved in discussions about access to counsel for detainees when meeting with Durbin. Durbin also claims there are emails that "support that fact." + Show Spoiler +4. BK said last week that he had never been blackout drunk. Of course it's obvious to everyone why he has to say this. If he admitted to this then it would open the door to the possibility that Ford was telling the truth and he simply didn't remember. HOWEVER, there are a number of people coming out to say that this is flatly untrue. Their experiences with BK were with someone who would get drunk to the point of incoherence. Frankly, I don't even need their accounts to know this is bullshit. I'm not stupid or naive enough to believe that somebody who drank as much as this guy did (and whose best friend was an alcoholic) never drank to the point of blackout. Also, his friend Judge admits to getting blackout drunk back in high school in his book. Anyone really believe his best friend and drinking buddy wasn't doing the same? This is pure cover. 5. BK said last week that Bart O'Kavanaugh was a fictionalized character. HOWEVER, we now know his nickname back then was Bart. Also, the book references him puking after being drunk, something he not only admitted to being a regular occurrence in the hearings themselves but also in his 1983 letter. The reference to Bart in the book? Says he was "passed out after drinking." Obvious why he wouldn't be upfront about this. 6. BK said multiple times last week that all 4 people at the party said what Ford claimed never happened. HOWEVER, this is a misrepresentation of the facts resulting in a lie. What they said was they did not remember this happening. 7. BK said last week that "I have never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation." HOWEVER, Ford simply describes a small gathering of friends with drinking. His own calendar shows these sorts of gatherings are were not uncommon. Why deflect something so simple? Why not just say "sure I went to some house parties like this but I don't remember this one?" It simply isn't credible that he "never attended" a gathering like the one Ford described. 8. BK said about Ford's claims last week that "[N]one of those gatherings included the group of people that Dr. Ford has identified. And as my calendars show, I was very precise about listing who was there; very precise." HOWEVER, Ford said that Mark Judge and PJ were there. We know MJ was his friend but his calendar also says on his July 1 calendar entry that he was hanging with PJ. That's 2 of the 3 men Ford said were at the party. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/jbenton/status/1045799992441675781 9. BK said he got into Yale without connections. HOWEVER, we know his grandfather attended Yale, making him a legacy student. 10. BK, through his lawyer, said as part of his explanation of Renate Alumni, that he had merely kissed Renate. HOWEVER, she says they never kissed. It's worth noting that apparently in one of the other 'Renate Alumni' kids yearbooks it says "You need a date / and it’s getting late / so don’t hesitate / to call Renate." Not exactly something you'd expect to see if these kids and her were telling the truth about their promiscuity, but whatever. This doesn't even include things like his involvement of the Pickering judicial nomination and the legal questions behind warrantless wiretapping. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more people could point out. Guy is bad news and the legal community, at least, knows it. This article goes into a lot more of the fishy stuff and absurd deflections in many of his answers. His deflections are embarrassing when you dig into them. Nobody acts like this unless they have a guilty conscious and/or are trying to cover-up something. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying
I'll get back to this over the weekend (prob Saturday), but the fact people are still trumpeting around the first three shows what a farce the media is. And in fact, I went over #1 in this very thread. Now it was short, but basically if you read the transcript of his hearing, even just the part with Senator Kennedy, it's painfully obvious that in context he's not lying at all.
Also i would think after this week you'd be wise enough to not just quote the twitter feeds of Senate Democrats, that's asking for it, right there. But these charges are very serious so I don't mind coming back to them. At least you didn't go with "Devil's Triangle."
|
Who cares if the links are from Sen Dems if what I'm linking them for are the attachments/videos? Are you insinuating that because they are from Democratic people that the emails and videos in them are fake?
I dont remember the first being discussed but I'm genuinely curious to hear about this context that absolves him.
|
On October 05 2018 16:02 On_Slaught wrote:
Who cares if the links are from Sen Dems if what I'm linking them for are the attachments/videos? Are you insinuating that because they are from Democratic people that the emails and videos in them are fake?
I dont remember the first being discussed but I'm genuinely curious to hear about this context that absolves him.
im going to sleep now, I will get back to this in the next few days. But videos can be edited (Kamala Harris had the worst example of BS editing during the first set of hearings) and they leave out, you know, the entire rest of the testimony. These people have a rooting interest, just keep that in mind. (not that I dont)
edit: btw know that I do have, and always have had, a very large built in leniency for people "technically" telling the truth under oath. the game is played to not make waves, and I fully understand that every nominee, every person up there under oath, left or right, does that. I don't know if that will matter in my follow up post, but just so you know.
|
I'd like to think we'd hold a SCOTUS nominee to a higher standard than "technically" correct when it's pretty clear (to me at least) that he isnt being fully transparent, to say the least. I'm curious how many lies people think are appropriate before we should consider a SCOTUS nominee disqualified. Call me old fashioned but 1 is enough for me (and yes I would apply this to the liberal judges as well). If there is one place worth applying such an exacting standard it would be SCOTUS.
|
I have been drunk a lot of times. I mean a lot. I've been drunk enough to stumble, slur my speech, puke, make a fool out of myself, etc. But I have only legitimately "blacked out" from drinking once. Every other time, I was three sheets to the wind, but I was still aware to some degree and the next day I might not remember every single joke or event, but I would remember the general events and tone of the conversations. So it is possible to drink a lot and never actually "black out" from drinking to the point where you could rape someone and not remember it.
Passing out from drinking is not the same as blacking out, or rather, it could potentially be the same, or it could potentially just be a person who is drunker than a skunk and then passed out. I've "passed out" drunk plenty of times, but I was only "blacked out" where I was walking around and talking but can't remember anything at all about the night one time. This is also inconclusive to me, precisely because the implication here is that Kavanaugh was "blacked out" and possibly assaulted Dr. Ford but just couldn't remember it, or perhaps remembered it as making a pass at a girl and didn't realize how horrified and frightened she was by it. So the accusation that he was blacked out to that point is very specific and having passed out once, or puked while drunk, doesn't really mean that he is lying when he says he never "blacked out".
Misrepresenting the claim doesn't really bother me. The witnesses can't corroborate the allegation. Period. Effectively, this means it didn't happen as far as they are concerned. Yes he is technically incorrect, but as far as he is being accused, I can understand his reasoning here. If you already have a problem with Kavanaugh, I could see this being seen as "dishonesty" but it really doesn't rise to that level for me.
The gathering she describes is somewhat specific though as far as location and people attending. I read this as him obviously saying: "I was never at a small party that wasn't really a party with those four people at that location."
The July 1st meeting seems like the only real inconsistency here, but without more details as to the precise nature of that gathering for "skis" I can't be sure that he is explicitly lying. It could be that this wasn't really a party at all, was specific to something else, there wasn't a lot of drinking, or any number of other reasons why it wouldn't qualify as a "party" and so wouldn't be relevant to his general assertion that the parties he attended never involved those specific people. I have gone to a friend's house for a few beers plenty of times where it couldn't be classified as a party or even a kick-back and therefore if I was being asked to list parties and kickbacks I would probably leave those out.
Has it been proven that he was aware his grandfather went to Yale? Regardless, this seems pretty weak.
Poor Rennate. She has the whole world calling her a slut because some dumb kids in a yearbook. I really can't blame Kavanaugh for not wanting to drag her name through the mud, and again, not sure exactly what he meant at the time. Certainly seems like they were implying she was getting around, but then again, who knows?
All this stuff is pretty hyper-nitpicking, and completely ignores the gaping holes in Dr. Ford's testimony, the allegations of her ex-boyfriend that she committed perjury multiple times, and her total lack of evidence or even solid recollection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
