Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[*bfine32*]

(09-27-2018, 11:59 AM)jj22 Wrote: I trust someone testifying under oath over some one on a message board desperate to defend Kav.

Me too. I can only assume you'll give Kavs the same benefit 

[*michaelsean*]

(09-27-2018, 11:59 AM)jj22 Wrote: I trust someone testifying under oath over someone on a message board desperate to defend Kav. You must not be listening? She went into detail as to why she wanted to remain anonymous. And it ended that talking point.

Peep how quick Republicans are trying to shut her up by keeping her to 5 minutes just as she was getting into details.

I'm not commenting on what happened or didn't happen.  I'm commenting on the timing.  A PhD thought if she wrote an anonymous letter that it would halt the confirmation? You don't have to believe me, that's what she said.

[jj22]

Yes. She thought it would call into question his character without putting her family through the harassment she and her family has gone through as well as forcing her to relive it on live tv in front of the world.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-27-2018, 12:04 PM)jj22 Wrote: Yes. She thought it would call into question his character without putting her family through the harassment she and her family has gone through as well as forcing her to relive it on live tv in front of the world.

Well if she believed that an anonymous letter could accomplish that, then I question how she obtained her doctorate.

[jj22]

Anonymous letters are sent all the time. for various reasons to avoid what we are seeing today and the attack on victims. this happens and isn't specific to Ford. Ask law enforcement who rely on anonymous tips all the time. They even offer a hotline.

[fredtoast]

(09-26-2018, 08:56 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: It's not helping that classmates from Yale are calling into radio talk shows, telling how Left leaning affiliates like Huff Po, and others have called them, attempting to lure them into saying things to aid the story, even going so far as to paint a picture and try to lead the person to agree with what they said.

Republicans did the same thing when they found 65 women to support Kavanaugh.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-27-2018, 12:10 PM)jj22 Wrote: Anonymous letters are sent all the time. for various reasons to avoid what we are seeing today and the attack on victims. this happens and isn't specific to Ford. Ask law enforcement who rely on anonymous tips all the time.

They are sent to who and with what expectation?

[fredtoast]

(09-26-2018, 08:28 PM)michaelsean Wrote:  There is nothing the FBI can come up with that will exonerate him to half the country. They can’t prove he didn’t do it. That doesn’t seem to bother anybody.

It doesn't bother me because I don't think he will be punished if they don't find any evidence to corroborate her claim.

But they could come up with something that proves she is telling the truth and it doesn't seem to bother you that that would never happen without an investigation.

[jj22]

Republicans just gave her a map of the houses in the neighborhood to see if she recognizes the houses. Not hers, or the house she was at, but random houses!

Edit: They clarified, they just wanted her house.

[Dill]

LOL looks like you still haven't squared this--

(09-27-2018, 12:43 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Still haven't squared supporting women and the organization most responsible for their oppression on the planet, eh?  Not to worry, I'm sure your logical inconsistencies don't trouble you at all.  Now, if we can leave your support for Islamic oppression of women aside and get to the thread topic?

With this--

(09-26-2018, 09:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   That's the problem with political extremists.  You either have to buy their whole agenda or you are the enemy.  God forbid someone acknowledge that one political party or ideology can't have the correct answer to every question.  Matt probably forgot to add the extremism of the far left posters on this board, they can be quite a turn off to liberalism as well.

Eh, he's just proving with every post that a hyper-partisan person such as himself cannot comprehend a person have a range of opinions.  He's boxed in by his own orthodoxy, when it's challenged in the slightest he has to see the challenger as an other or an enemy.

So two quick points:

1.  The issue of how ideology relates to--or drives--political positions, flies in the face of data and/or generates logical inconsistencies--that is never "off topic" on threads in this forum.

2. You don't get to raise the issue of how ideology drives politics by accusing others of "extremism" (referencing gun control no less) and then unilaterally decide it's "back to the topic" the moment your own projection becomes the issue. 

You claim your inconsistencies merely express a "range of opinions," yet those you disagree with are "extremists," "boxed in by orthodoxy," who demand "the correct answer to every question."  It's others who show "disdain for different opinions" and "hyper-partisanship," never you.

But if, after saying this, you characterize refusal to condemn the entire religion of Islam as simply support for "Islamic oppression of women"; and you characterize a refusal to call other humans "animals," even ISIS, as "support" for ISIS, then you are doing exactly what you claim your "extremists" do. You are demanding people buy your total, condemnatory (and uninformed) agenda or they are misogynists and ISIS supporters--THE ENEMY.  That is how people are "boxed in by orthodoxy."

You know I could draw on examples of your orthodoxy/ideology overriding data on a range of other topics (anti-communism? antifa? fake news?)--always with a flourish of extreme anti-extremist rhetoric-- but that would really take us off topic. 

[*bfine32*]

Every Dem so far believes her without question. I will say she seems credible.

[jj22]

Fox News screwed Kav. Their attempt to cover by having two separate people claim it was them on two separate shows looks bad and desperate now. Just blew up in their face.

[fredtoast]

(09-26-2018, 09:14 PM)Vlad Wrote: Say it aint so!

Never would have imagined it!

Former Hillary Clinton Operative Reveals Plan To Scuttle Kavanaugh, Keep Supreme Court Out Of Trump's Hands Until 2020


Former Hillary Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon gave a revealing interview to The New York Times Wednesday, outlining activists' plan to scuttle Brett Kavanaugh's nomination and keep the Supreme Court seat vacant — and "out of Trump's hands" — until 2020.

Fallon now headlines a group called "Demand Justice," which, among other legislative priorities, is seeking revenge for the Senate's treatment of former President Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. Their plan, Fallon says, is to make sure President Donald Trump is similarly deprived of a SCOTUS pick, and they'll do what they have to in order to keep Kavanaugh off the bench.

If Kavanaugh drops out, we're halfway there," Fallon explains. (I'm not worried about Kavanaugh dropping out...I am concerned about Rinos like Collins, Flake and Murkowski's though)

The second part of Fallon's genius plan comes in November: "If Democrats are able to win back the Senate, we'd have a path to blocking Trump from picking any of the archconservatives on his short list."

So, step one, boot Kavanaugh. Step two, win the Senate. The plan only finishes if, in step three, the Democrats retake the White House, but that's the most speculative step.


www.dailywire.com/news/36360/former-hilary-clinton-operative-reveals-plan-emily-zanotti

So political parties try to stop the other political party from gaining control of the Supreme Court (Republicans-Graland, Democrats-Kavanaugh)?

And you think this is some huge secret?

Did you know that water is wet?

[fredtoast]

(09-27-2018, 12:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Every Dem so far believes her without question. I will say she seems credible.

This is not true at all.  Most Dems just want an investigation.

[*bfine32*]

(09-27-2018, 12:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is not true at all.  Most Dems just want an investigation.

I can only assume you are not watching the questioning. 

[SunsetBengal]

(09-27-2018, 12:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Republicans did the same thing when they found 65 women to support Kavanaugh.

I believe that it was over 200 women, who came forward of their own volition.

[jj22]

30 minutes after the news dropped.....How quick he found 200 women. I only remember 1 and it was poor Renate. Whom it sounds like we all may decedents of.

[fredtoast]

(09-27-2018, 12:21 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL looks like you still haven't squared this--


With this--


So two quick points:

1.  The issue of how ideology relates to--or drives--political positions, flies in the face of data and/or generates logical inconsistencies--that is never "off topic" on threads in this forum.

2. You don't get to raise the issue of how ideology drives politics by accusing others of "extremism" (referencing gun control no less) and then unilaterally decide it's "back to the topic" the moment your own projection becomes the issue. 

You claim your inconsistencies merely express a "range of opinions," yet those you disagree with are "extremists," "boxed in by orthodoxy," who demand "the correct answer to every question."  It's others who show "disdain for different opinions" and "hyper-partisanship," never you.

But if, after saying this, you characterize refusal to condemn the entire religion of Islam as simply support for "Islamic oppression of women"; and you characterize a refusal to call other humans "animals," even ISIS, as "support" for ISIS, then you are doing exactly what you claim your "extremists" do. You are demanding people buy your total, condemnatory (and uninformed) agenda or they are misogynists and ISIS supporters--THE ENEMY.  That is how people are "boxed in by orthodoxy."

You know I could draw on examples of your orthodoxy/ideology overriding data on a range of other topics (anti-communism? antifa? fake news?)--always with a flourish of extreme anti-extremist rhetoric-- but that would really take us off topic. 

Rep.

SSF is a complete extremist when it come to gun laws.  There are lots of moderate people who don't want to ban guns.  All they want is simple common sense laws to help hold gunowners responsible and prosecute criminals illegally in possession of guns.  But he claims that we can not have even the slightest gun control laws like licensing and registration because that will inevitably lead to the government taking every ones weapons.

[fredtoast]

(09-27-2018, 12:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I can only assume you are not watching the questioning. 

I am not, but I bet there are plenty who just want an investigation.

Just because they are asking tough questions does not mean they believe her.

[*bfine32*]

(09-27-2018, 12:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not, but I bet there are plenty who just want an investigation.

Just because they are asking tough questions does not mean they believe her.

Yeah, the GOP wanted an investigation back in July; they've mad that clear. When everyone thanks her for coming forth to tell the truth it sorta leans to they believe her.