Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[*bfine32*]

(09-28-2018, 12:31 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Quick question...is calling them DemoCRAPS and RePOOPlicans going too far, too?  Asking for a friend who is probably me and also functionally friendless. 

Pretty sure it depends on who says it.

[jj22]

This is a good time to remind everyone that Brett Kavanaugh has ruled that polygraphs can be accepted as gospel by employers in making hiring decisions.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/09/remember-that-time-brett-kavanaugh-said-polygraphs-are-important-in-making-hiring-decisions/

My how things have changed.

[Arturo Bandini]

(09-28-2018, 01:46 PM)jj22 Wrote: This is a good time to remind everyone that Brett Kavanaugh has ruled that polygraphs can be accepted as gospel by employers in making hiring decisions.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/09/remember-that-time-brett-kavanaugh-said-polygraphs-are-important-in-making-hiring-decisions/

My how things have changed.

That's the point of all of this. This part of the population isn't concerned by laws, you are.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-28-2018, 01:53 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: That's the point of all of this. This part of the population isn't concerned by laws, you are.

Which law?  

[Bengalzona]

(09-28-2018, 12:31 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Quick question...is calling them DemoCRAPS and RePOOPlicans going too far, too?  Asking for a friend who is probably me and also functionally friendless. 

For clarification purposes, the management here are not big fans of the phrase "tard" being attached to nouns and pronouns in an attempt to insult other people.

As for the other terms you have listed, I don't foresee their use as being a problem as they seem to accurately convey the current state of American politics without specifically insulting individuals.

(09-28-2018, 01:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Pretty sure it depends on who says it.

As far as the "tard" words, that is exactly right. For example, if a poster repeatedly uses the term over and over ad nausea after being warned repeatedly, then that person could expect some consequential discipline action. If another poster just used a term once, that poster may just expect a warning and a deleted post.

Good observation!

[*bfine32*]

(09-28-2018, 02:02 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: For clarification purposes, the management here are not big fans of the phrase "tard" being attached to nouns and pronouns in an attempt to insult other people.

As for the other terms you have listed, I don't foresee their use as being a problem as they seem to accurately convey the current state of American politics without specifically insulting individuals.


As far as the "tard" words, that is exactly right. For example, if a poster repeatedly uses the term over and over ad nausea after being warned repeatedly, then that person could expect some consequential discipline action. If another poster just used a term once, that poster may just expect a warning and a deleted post.

Good observation!

bfine before the moderation panel:

[Bengalzona]

About those other witnesses...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-fact-check-kavanaughs-claim-exoneration-224022076.html

[*michaelsean*]

Quote:BLUMENTHAL: “As a federal judge, you’re aware of the jury instruction falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, are you not? You’re aware of that jury instruction.”

KAVANAUGH: “I am.”

BLUMENTHAL: “You know what it means.”

KAVANAUGH: “You can translate it for me, Senator, you can do it better than I can.”

BLUMENTHAL: “False in one thing, false in everything, meaning in jury instructions, that we — some of us, as prosecutors, have heard many times, is told a jury that they can disbelieve a witness if they find them to be false in one thing. So, the core of why we’re here today really is credibility.

They couldn't find anyone else to ask this?

[*michaelsean*]

(09-28-2018, 02:13 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: About those other witnesses...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-fact-check-kavanaughs-claim-exoneration-224022076.html

Oh no he phrased it wrong.  

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-27-2018, 11:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: C'mon dude, if allegations against you that will destroy your life are made and you're confronted by a hostile person who wants to believe it you have to keep a cool head or you'll look even more guiltier.


Seriously, I've interviewed thousands of people during investigations, Kavanaugh's reactions were not that of a person who is guilty.  He may be guilty and be a great actor, but anyone couching his anger as proof of his guilt hasn't got a clue what they're talking about.

I wondered why people keep saying his anger proves his guilt. If I was him and innocent, I'd be pissed as hell. They are trying to ruin his life, career and family, wtf should he lay down and take it?? Be cool when you can and fight like hell.

And I'm also very pissed at the idiots that casually forget "innocent til proven guilty" he hasn't been proven guilty about anything. Even has witness saying he didn't do as she claims. Was she assaulted? it's possible, but I don't think it was Kavanaugh.

[*bfine32*]

(09-28-2018, 02:13 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: About those other witnesses...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-fact-check-kavanaughs-claim-exoneration-224022076.html

Oh how hard folks are trying. First off in our current warped society Kavs is having to prove his innocence over an assumption of guilty. To complicate this matter he is having to prove something didn't happen. So when the 4 witnesses that the accuser says were at the party state they have no recollection of any such party we cannot say that refutes (contradicts) what the assessor is asserting?

Seems like Kavs is having to play against a pretty stacked deck. 

[Belsnickel]

(09-28-2018, 02:20 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I wondered why people keep saying his anger proves his guilt. If I was him and innocent, I'd be pissed as hell. They are trying to ruin his life, career and family, wtf should he lay down and take it?? Be cool when you can and fight like hell.

I don't think his anger proves his guilt, but I think it shows he lacks judicial temperament.

(09-28-2018, 02:20 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And I'm also very pissed at the idiots that casually forget "innocent til proven guilty" he hasn't been proven guilty about anything. Even has witness saying he didn't do as she claims. Was she assaulted? it's possible, but I don't think it was Kavanaugh.

This isn't a criminal proceeding. This isn't really a judicial proceeding at all. Presumption of innocence doesn't mean anything, here, because he isn't being convicted of anything. It's a job interview, nothing more.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-27-2018, 11:20 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: He's applying for a job. A lifetime position on the highest court in the land. And, apparently, his initial background check wasn't thorough enough. But he and Trump could fix that and forever clear his 'good name' by having the FBI find facts.

Hmmm. I wonder why they don't do that?

LOL the FBI can investigate, but we already know the results will be in-conclusive so what's the point?? Their is not enough there either way, no physical evidence exists, it's all he said she said. All you will do is waste more tax-payers money on a bs allegation that can/can't be disproved. And of course each side will say, see nothing there or see he can't refute it. So why keep wasting our time with bs?
Vote his ass on in and be done with it.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-28-2018, 02:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't think his anger proves his guilt, but I think it shows he lacks judicial temperament.


This isn't a criminal proceeding. This isn't really a judicial proceeding at all. Presumption of innocence doesn't mean anything, here, because he isn't being convicted of anything. It's a job interview, nothing more.

People keep saying this.  He's been on the bench for what?  12 years?  Do we have some instances of what you fear?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-27-2018, 11:22 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I notice that the GOP didn't want the Sex Crimes Prosecutor questioning him..... at all.

Uhm because he's not on Trial? it would've been highly in-appropriate.
Reminder, this is a Job interview, not a trial.

[Belsnickel]

(09-28-2018, 02:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: People keep saying this.  He's been on the bench for what?  12 years?  Do we have some instances of what you fear?

I don't know, I've never seen him on the bench. I just expect someone in that position to be a bit more composed than he was. Judicial temperament is a subjective thing and what he put on display was not what I would view it as.

[Belsnickel]

(09-28-2018, 02:28 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Uhm because he's not on Trial? it would've been highly in-appropriate.
Reminder, this is a Job interview, not a trial.

Then why have the prosecutor there at all? The GOP tried to set this up as a trial in an effort to move the burden of proof needed to a level that could never be matched. By framing it in that way, they get their followers to make the arguments you and others have been making.

[fredtoast]

(09-28-2018, 02:25 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: LOL the FBI can investigate, but we already know the results will be in-conclusive so what's the point?? 

You have no idea what the investigation might reveal.  For example what if they go to the house where Kavanaugh, Judge, and PJ Smyth were drinking on July 1 and it matches the description of the house where Ford said she was assaulted?  What if interviews with other classmates reveal people who did hear about what happened?

It is absurd to claim an investigation will not provide any more information.  Only a blind devotee to Kavanaugh would make such a claim.

[GMDino]

(09-28-2018, 02:25 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: LOL the FBI can investigate, but we already know the results will be in-conclusive so what's the point?? Their is not enough there either way, no physical evidence exists, it's all he said she said. All you will do is waste more tax-payers money on a bs allegation that can/can't be disproved. And of course each side will say, see nothing there or see he can't refute it. So why keep wasting our time with bs?
Vote his ass on in and be done with it.

I think the point is that it would make it go away more securely if it is false.

Why one side, proclaiming innocence, is o against any investigation is really weird to me.  If it was me I'd be demanding one.  I could wait another two weeks to get a lifetime job.

[fredtoast]

(09-28-2018, 02:28 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Uhm because he's not on Trial? it would've been highly in-appropriate.
Reminder, this is a Job interview, not a trial.

What difference does it make if it was a trial or a job interview?

Don't you want the best questions that would get to the truth in either situation?