theoldman posted:
napacat posted:

The Kavanaugh accuser wants Kavanaugh to testify first.  Can anyone see this for the sham that it is.  What a joke...I hope the Republicans have some resolve and dont allow them to dictate terms.

You, and your racist, bigoted, sexist, and cowardly demagogue buddy make me puke.

Ditto

Whish there was an "IGNORE" button here to get Napa outta my hair.

theoldman posted:
napacat posted:

The Kavanaugh accuser wants Kavanaugh to testify first.  Can anyone see this for the sham that it is.  What a joke...I hope the Republicans have some resolve and dont allow them to dictate terms.

You, and your racist, bigoted, sexist, and cowardly demagogue buddy, make me puke.

The amazing thing is I believe Napacat is a woman (from a different thread).  Can you imagine someone supporting 45 and his 'grab them by the p*ssy' culture, as well as Kavanaugh?

If Kavanaugh has nothing to hide he should DEMAND that the FBI investigate this allegation to prove his innocence.  Instead, he sits quietly and lets the GOP try and tear this woman down. 

Makes me want to puke as well.

"tear this woman down"

ever thought of Kavanaugh's family? The accuser doesn't remember the time, place, how she got there, how she left, how many people were in the room, and yet she and her lawyer (with Feinstein's and the Dems help) are dragging Kavanaugh through the mud, AND trying to orchestrate the whole proceedings. The hubris shown on this Forum by some is amazing.

 

arsenal4ever posted:

"tear this woman down"

ever thought of Kavanaugh's family? The accuser doesn't remember the time, place, how she got there, how she left, how many people were in the room, and yet she and her lawyer (with Feinstein's and the Dems help) are dragging Kavanaugh through the mud, AND trying to orchestrate the whole proceedings. The hubris shown on this Forum by some is amazing.

 

Kavanaugh has opened himself and his family up to this vetting when he accepted the nomination to the SCourt.  Is it unfair for the kids to pay for the potential sins of their father?  We all face that. 

Again, my point is, if he is so innocent, then refute the story, talk to the FBI.  Don't rely on trump and the GOP to try and discredit the accuser.  I know if I was innocent I would scream it from the roof tops. 

patespo1 posted:
arsenal4ever posted:

"tear this woman down"

ever thought of Kavanaugh's family? The accuser doesn't remember the time, place, how she got there, how she left, how many people were in the room, and yet she and her lawyer (with Feinstein's and the Dems help) are dragging Kavanaugh through the mud, AND trying to orchestrate the whole proceedings. The hubris shown on this Forum by some is amazing.

 

Kavanaugh has opened himself and his family up to this vetting when he accepted the nomination to the SCourt.  Is it unfair for the kids to pay for the potential sins of their father?  We all face that. 

Again, my point is, if he is so innocent, then refute the story, talk to the FBI.  Don't rely on trump and the GOP to try and discredit the accuser.  I know if I was innocent I would scream it from the roof tops. 

Arsenal is 100% correct.  The rest of you may be morons. The man has gone through 6 FBI background checks.  Is a man of exceptional character ( until 1 accusation) and has denied it ever occurred or was even at the party.  And has wanted to testify ASAP.

Yet the accuser says she needs time?   She filed this in July.  She has had time to prepare....knowing she would be asked to explain.

Now has demands for testifying and wants Kavanaugh to go first.  Common sense has sailed past most of you!

 

People are obsessed with a variety of times. How long ago was this event? When was it first reported? When was the information released? Who goes first?

To me the key time issue is this:  A S. Ct. appointment is for life, and Judge Kavanaugh is around 54 yrs old, so, the key time is 25 YEARS where he could be on the Court.  I don't see an issue fully investigating this issue for another week or two, before the guy is put on the highest court of the country for decades.

winetarelli posted:

Please let Mueller have the goods. Oh PLEASE. 

You know he has plenty.  My concern is that if Mueller doesn't release something significant before the mid-terms, there is going to be a blood bath at the DOJ immediately afterwards which might affect his ability to continue.  It's time, Mr. Mueller.

PH

napacat posted:
patespo1 posted:
arsenal4ever posted:

"tear this woman down"

ever thought of Kavanaugh's family? The accuser doesn't remember the time, place, how she got there, how she left, how many people were in the room, and yet she and her lawyer (with Feinstein's and the Dems help) are dragging Kavanaugh through the mud, AND trying to orchestrate the whole proceedings. The hubris shown on this Forum by some is amazing.

 

Kavanaugh has opened himself and his family up to this vetting when he accepted the nomination to the SCourt.  Is it unfair for the kids to pay for the potential sins of their father?  We all face that. 

Again, my point is, if he is so innocent, then refute the story, talk to the FBI.  Don't rely on trump and the GOP to try and discredit the accuser.  I know if I was innocent I would scream it from the roof tops. 

Arsenal is 100% correct.  The rest of you may be morons. The man has gone through 6 FBI background checks.  The problem is that checks began at age 18, a year before this alleged incident. Is a man of exceptional character Except as appears to be well known him and  his friend liked to get stoned drunk ( until 1 accusation) and has denied it ever occurred or was even at the party.  And has wanted to testify ASAP. Without his drinking buddy testifying under oath this is kind of a farce.

Yet the accuser says she needs time?   She filed this in July.  She has had time to prepare....knowing she would be asked to explain. How do you know what she knew? She appears not to have wanted to go public with this at first.

Now has demands for testifying and wants Kavanaugh to go first.  Common sense has sailed past most of you!  Oh if us "morons" only had your blindness how happy we would be.

 

I consider people who vote for a racist, a bigot, and a demagogue to be, as the pussy-grabber in chief would put it, the enemy of the people (democracy.)

arsenal4ever posted:

63 Million voted for Trump. That mean that there is a good chance your neighbor or a member of your family is your enemy.  Wouldn't surprise me at all if they think you're their enemy.

"enemy"??!!  You realize that voting is a civic duty and a democratic right, not an act of war, right? 

Geez, maybe you wanna start breathing through your nose rather than your mouth?

arsenal4ever posted:

He used the word enemy. I just pointed out how many enemies he had. Missed comprehension in school?

Big difference between the much used expression "enemy of the people", especially when used in reference to someone who has used the phrase dozens of times to attack a key pillar of democracy, and using it in reference to family, friends and neighbours.  

And why stoop to personal attacks? (though to be honest, I'm not sure your last comment is a personal attack since I'm not sure what you mean?)  I never attacked you, just helpfully suggested that maybe you wanna calm down a little, for your sake more than anyone else's. I'm concerned you might have a heart attack!  :-) 

arsenal4ever posted:

Pretty weak BMan. I doubt if you have any concern for anyone. And google comprehension.

Now you're just lashing out. What did anything I said cause you to question my concern for others?  I love my fellow man!  (and woman!)  Even those with misguided political views!

If you're gonna attack and insult me, at least put a little effort into it!  

arsenal4ever posted:

He used the word enemy. I just pointed out how many enemies he had. Missed comprehension in school?

It was a reference to the demagogue in chief's use of it for our freedom of the press.

And I'm afraid I do consider people who support a president who doesn't remotely understand the word "democracy", who admires dictators and bows and scrapes to Russia's KGB thug in chief, to be enemies of our democracy.

And no, none of my relatives or friends would ever support a man who makes fun of the disabled, hurls insults at military veterans (when he himself dodged the draft, "He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured. OK?") , who makes racist statements again Hispanics and other minority groups, who says that some Neo-Nazis are "fine people" and has lied hundreds and hundreds of times since taking office.  Do you mean you have a lot of friends who support that kind of person? How is that even possible? If I ran into someone in a bar who thought those were admirable traits in a president I'd be out the door. Who wouldn't?

I gave people who voted for trump a pass initially.  Anyone can get conned once or twice.

People who continue to support him now, in the face of everything we know and everything he has done, get no quarter from me anymore.  Even my few friends who voted for him "just don't want to talk about it," anymore.  They know they were duped.

PH

g-man posted:
napacat posted:

 

Economic numbers great today...winning is feeling good.

just curious, since i watch this every day... what important economic numbers are you talking about?

Probably referring to the stock market and his 401k.  Since 84% of stocks are held by the richest 10% of Americans, these numbers really don't mean anything to most of our fellow countrymen.  

But then again, most Trumpistas aren't interested in most Americans, our country's health or any semblance of long term economic sanity.  As long as they're making money now, all is well.

PH

purplehaze posted:

I gave people who voted for trump a pass initially.  Anyone can get conned once or twice.

People who continue to support him now, in the face of everything we know and everything he has done, get no quarter from me anymore.  Even my few friends who voted for him "just don't want to talk about it," anymore.  They know they were duped.

PH

People were duped in 2012 when re-electing the incompetent jerk. I live what Trump has done and is doing for this country. I just don’t want anyone like him dating my daughter.

mikemann posted:
purplehaze posted:

I gave people who voted for trump a pass initially.  Anyone can get conned once or twice.

People who continue to support him now, in the face of everything we know and everything he has done, get no quarter from me anymore.  Even my few friends who voted for him "just don't want to talk about it," anymore.  They know they were duped.

PH

People were duped in 2012 when re-electing the incompetent jerk. I live what Trump has done and is doing for this country. I just don’t want anyone like him dating my daughter.

Happy to hear that you wouldn't want him dating your daughter. Some other Trumpistas posting here seem to want to date him themselves!

MIKEMANN is a troll.  Speaking of weird dating...

'If Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her.'

Defend, or perhaps at least explain that please, anyone?  

This is the guy at the helm.  Anything he touches is tainted.  Is that so hard to understand?

PH

Brett Kavanaugh (aka Bart O'Kavanaugh per the autobiographical memoirs of his  buddy Mark Judge) is really the hill that the GOP wants to die on now?

Then again, if you're OK supporting the self-admitted sexual assaulter otherwise known as Putin's Bitch, then supporting the appointment of another sexual assaulter to the highest court in the land is just another day in paradise.

    

Michael Avenatti, attorney for Stormy Daniels and someone that Putin's Bitch is averse to tangling with, tweeted that he has witnesses willing to testify that "Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a "train" of men to subsequently gang rape them".  

https://mobile.twitter.com/Mic.../1044032678951960576

Suffice to say that Senate Republicans have a massive political disaster to contend with now.

One of the more offensive things said by the President (and there are plenty from which to choose) was something like this, in speaking about Kavanaugh.........  "He was born to be on the S. Ct." 

That's not the way it is supposed to work in our country. We don't have a monarchy. Rich and elitist folks are fine, but they are not more fine or more entitled to a position than someone who grew up middle class, poor or whatever.  But in the world of a narcissist and an elitist snob, who grew up wealthy, who became wealthier, money and wealth is everything.

Some people get to the S. Ct. the "old fashioned way....They earned it." (paraphrasing the old John Houseman commercial for E.F.Hutton) 

 

irwin posted:

One of the more offensive things said by the President (and there are plenty from which to choose) was something like this, in speaking about Kavanaugh.........  "He was born to be on the S. Ct." 

That's not the way it is supposed to work in our country. We don't have a monarchy. Rich and elitist folks are fine, but they are not more fine or more entitled to a position than someone who grew up middle class, poor or whatever.  But in the world of a narcissist and an elitist snob, who grew up wealthy, who became wealthier, money and wealth is everything.

Some people get to the S. Ct. the "old fashioned way....They earned it." (paraphrasing the old John Houseman commercial for E.F.Hutton) 

 

Iriwn...wow...have you never heard the expression that a person was born to do something.    Take Tiger Woods for example...I'm sure at some point someone has said, he was born to play golf.  Does not mean someone designated him one of the best golfers ever.  

It means all of his hard work paid off.  Same thing with Kavannaugh (I presume).  And what is taking place is disgusting.  Setting up rape trains...come on.  You could not have done that and passed 6 previous FBI background checks.  This is a pure scam...and if your a democrat and not embarrassed you should be.

I hope the Republicans reject this for the joke that it is.

My comment, Napacat, was neither pro or anti Kavanaugh. It was anti-entitlement. 

But, since you mention the FBI, do you find it at all inconsistent that the President criticizes the FBI so easily and loosely and willingly, but the position of the pro-Kavanaugh forces is that the FBI did a bang up job in investigating Kavanaugh earlier?  Do you think the FBI was aware of or interviewed the Professor from California or the other accusers?

If they investigated him 5 times, why did they do the 6th? It's becomes sometimes you find new evidence.

 

 

And yet again Napacat, you provide further proof you are dumber than you look.  

What does passing previous FBI investigations have to do with anything here?  It's akin to complaining about having to go thru TSA screening at the airport, even though you'd been approved for TSA PreCheck and have passed all prior inspections.  

If you were about to offer a managerial job to a candidate, and several women stepped forward alleging that candidate had a checkered past, would you pause to do some additional investigation, or simply forge ahead with the job offer?  Kavanaugh wouldn't get hired at a Walmart with this cloud hanging over him, but the Senate GOP feels they have enough info to confirm him for the highest court in the land?  

If I were truly innocent, I'd be doing the exact opposite of what Kavanaugh and his drinking buddy Mark Judge have said and done.  I'd welcome investigations into these supposedly false and baseless allegations, which would tamp down most any outcry once no evidence/witnesses/proof came to light.  

A favorite refrain from the right is "why object to a police officer's request to search your car or dwelling if you are innocent and have nothing to hide?"  If Kavanaugh is innocent, let those investigations happen ASAP so we can move beyond this.  

we should not be analyzing this in terms of guilt or innocence.  This is not a criminal proceeding.  If charges had been filed immediately after this incident took place (if indeed it did) since Judge kavanaugh was a minor at the time, it would likely have been dealt with in our juvenile court, where the issue is not termed "guilt or innocence".

The questions are (supposed to be) these:

1) Does this guy have the professional experience, intelligence, and exposure to the Supreme Court and its tasks and functions to serve on that court?  (for sure he does)

2) Are his views of the law so wacky and out of the mainstream that he should be rejected, or are they more normative? (They are normative)

3) The last....Does he possess the requisite moral character to serve in this position?  Personally, even if as a high school student or college kid he did some awful things, it seems that in the last 33 or so years he's been ok.  I think back to some of the things I did when I was young and stupid (as opposed to now, when I am old and stupid).  On balance, I'd be likely, if I were in the Senate, to give him a pass and vote for him.

But, now, based on the strident positions of both sides, there is a fourth question. An inappropriate one, in my view, and that is:  How would voting for or against the confirmation affect my political future?  The US Senators, who in general have backbones not unlike your average jellyfish, will vote solely on the basis of this 4th question.

In the movie about Justice ginsburg, Orrin Hatch said that he disagreed with her opinions on things, but that she was qualified, and hence he voted for her.  But this type of civility is gone.  Where are the Jeffersons and the Washingtons?  They are not in politics, they are in the NFL.

 

 

 

Actually, any FBI vetting may have discovered the alleged previous indiscretions of Kavanaugh but determined they are not relevant to the purpose of their investigation.  According to the Justice Department:

""The FBI conducts a background check at the request of the White House, mainly to determine whether the nominee could pose a risk to national security interests of the United States, according to the Justice Department. Investigators interview an array of associates of the nominee, and report their findings back to the White House.""

So unless the FBI interviewed people from Kavanaugh's teen years and determined that any drunken groping when he was a teenager or flashing his junk to a woman when he was in college was a risk to national security, they may not have even mentioned it in their reporting, though they probably did if they discovered it.  However I am guessing that they never went that far back, especially given the volume of vetting they have to do.  I've been interviewed a number of times for others who were being vetted for security clearances and have been cleared myself several times, as I held a Top Secret clearance for over 30 years.  The process was rather cursory and I'm guessing the same would be the case for Kavanaugh if there was not any previous evidence of anything problematic.

Or..... the White House may have been advised and just ignored it..... 

The problem, as I see it, is with the speed that the committee wants to vote. Everyone knows they're trying to get this done before the coming disaster of the midterms, which even they have predicted they could lose at least the House.

But these allegations MUST be given a thorough investigation, whether Kavenaugh did them or not. Otherwise, if he is rushed to be appointed, he will have this cloud over his head for the rest of his career; much like Clarence Thomas. How could anyone trust him to rule on anything even close to a women's issue? Should he then recuse himself from them? That would be a very inefficient use of the Supreme Court's time.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×