Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[GMDino]

(09-19-2018, 10:00 AM)Benton Wrote: Lying about other people is nothing new. And it's pretty nonpartisan. Lying gfor and against candidates happens.

Not doing your job because it involves someone of the other political party is completely partisan.

This is what I can not understand about the spin from the right on this.  they had no reason to not meet with Garland other than pure partisan politics.  Period.

To claim that this allegation and the point that he lied under oath twice is "the same" or "worse" is delusional.

[jj22]

A man not getting a vote because of.... well because of..... who knows why is worse than a man not getting a vote because he's been accused of sexual assault? This is the problem with Trump supporters.

First. Would a women lying want a FBI investigation? Would she name a witness? Why won't the GOP interview the witness? Why not let the FBI investigate and determine if she's lying or not? Wouldn't that be the thing to do. You'd think so. But Trump supporters are too busy trying to defend sexual assault as usual. You can't expect more, as they claim what's happening to him is worse than Garland.

How anyone can say what is happening to Kav is worse than what happened to Garland? It doesn't make sense and you must question the logic and reasoning and the opinion of any poster trying to make it so.

[jj22]

Nick Jack Pappas‏Verified account @Pappiness · 7m7 minutes ago
There's no need for an independent FBI investigation into Ford's allegations against Kavanaugh. Let's just trust the questions from 11 white male Republicans with an average age of 62 who are part of a committee that hasn't had a Republican woman in its 202-year history.

I'll say it again because sometimes all it takes is common sense. If I was wrongfully accused, damn right I'd want an FBI investigation. Only Trump supporters wouldn't, and we all know why (they know he's guilty and care more about protecting the beloved sexual predators they continue to vote for and nominate).

Lying to the FBI is a crime. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford wants to talk to the FBI. Kav, Republicans, and Trump supporters don't want to talk to the FBI. Kav’s friend & witness Mark Judge doesn’t want to talk to the FBI. Why? Trump supporters want us to believe the one who is lying wants to talk to the FBI under oath and all those who are telling the truth doesn't? Why people want to play the fool is beyond me. But that's on you, and reflect poorly on your reputation. Hope the support for Trump is worth it.

[BmorePat87]

(09-18-2018, 08:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Gotta admit I've googled Merrick Garland accused of sexual assault and my google is coming up empty. Could you share a link?

Just google "Merrick Garland confirmation hearing"

[*bfine32*]

(09-19-2018, 02:37 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Just google "Merrick Garland confirmation hearing"

Bullshit!!

[Belsnickel]

(09-19-2018, 02:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Bullshit!!

You're putting too much excitement into it. The exclamation points give it a different effect.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-19-2018, 09:30 AM)GMDino Wrote:

SOMEone doesn't understand how finances work.

[GMDino]

(09-19-2018, 04:29 PM)PhilHos Wrote: SOMEone doesn't understand how finances work.

Actually there's a little bit more to it...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/new-strike-against-kavanaugh-season-tickets/565022/

Quote:According to financial disclosures, Kavanaugh had between $60,000 and $200,000 in debt, spread across three credit cards and a loan. (Federal rules require individuals to disclose ranges of debts, rather than specific figures, so the actual numbers are unknown.) As The Washington Post first reported, the White House has an explanation for the debts: Kavanaugh spent big on tickets to see the Washington Nationals, a team he’s known to back.


Raj Shah, a White House spokesman leading the communications push for Kavanaugh’s nomination, said that Kavanaugh had purchased Nats season tickets and playoff seats for himself and a handful of friends. Each credit card had between $15,000 and $50,000 of debt, as did the personal loan. By the time of his 2017 disclosure, the debts were gone, and Shah said that Kavanaugh’s only current debt is a home mortgage.


...


The more important, and curious, question is not how Kavanaugh accrued the debts attributed to the baseball tickets, but how he paid them down. It’s strange to imagine that a man of comparatively modest means would put tens of thousands of dollars on credit cards to buy baseball tickets, but even stranger that they would have been paid off so fast. The White House says that Kavanaugh’s friends reimbursed him for the tickets, and that he no longer buys them. The fact remains that Kavanaugh suddenly cleared at least $60,000 and as much as $200,000 in mysterious debt over one year—sums large enough that senators might well want to know who the sources of the payments were.


It would be challenging, though not impossible, to accrue so much in ticket debt in such a short time. Full-season tickets—meaning all 81 Nationals home games—can run into the thousands of dollars for a single seat. (How Kavanaugh, whose current job as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is highly demanding, would manage to find time to attend many baseball games—to say nothing of a full, 81-game home schedule—is another mystery.) At the most expensive price level, that could translate to around $35,000 per annum for a single seat, though most tickets are much less expensive. A renewing season-ticket holder at the most expensive price point would pay roughly $9,000 per year.



...

[*PhilHos*]

(09-19-2018, 04:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: Actually there's a little bit more to it...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/new-strike-against-kavanaugh-season-tickets/565022/

Quote:The more important, and curious, question is not how Kavanaugh accrued the debts attributed to the baseball tickets, but how he paid them down.

Now THAT is a reasonable question. Much better than wondering how someone can have a large amount of debt on a certain salary level.

[GMDino]

(09-19-2018, 05:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Now THAT is a reasonable question. Much better than wondering how someone can have a large amount of debt on a certain salary level.

It asks "who paid for" his debt.  

[*PhilHos*]

(09-19-2018, 05:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: It asks "who paid for" his debt.  

You are correct. I retract my accusation of Dr. Gu not knowing how finances work.

That's what I get for reading too fast.

[Vlad]

(09-19-2018, 09:30 AM)GMDino Wrote:

Lol...there is a place on this forum for you stick your lefty generated terribly misleading memes.

Graham made no mention of $300. His inquiry was about who may have possibly been behind her taking a polygraph.

“If Ms. Ford really did not want to come forward, never intended to come forward, never planned to come forward, why did she pay for a polygraph in August?” Graham asked Monday on Fox News’s “Hannity.” “And why did she hire a lawyer in August if she never intended to do what she’s doing?”

“And who paid for it?” Graham continued.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I'm sorry, but I have to point this out. Does anyone else find it cosmically ironic that the lawyer representing the accuser also defended Clinton against Paula Jones' allegations of sexual misconduct?

[GMDino]

(09-19-2018, 06:27 PM)Vlad Wrote: Lol...there is a place on this forum for you stick your lefty generated terribly misleading memes.

Graham made no mention of $300. His inquiry was about who may have possibly been behind her taking a polygraph.

“If Ms. Ford really did not want to come forward, never intended to come forward, never planned to come forward, why did she pay for a polygraph in August?” Graham asked Monday on Fox News’s “Hannity.” “And why did she hire a lawyer in August if she never intended to do what she’s doing?”

“And who paid for it?” Graham continued.

So it's all completely true except the photo adds the amount it actually was that Graham wanted to know who paid for.




"terribly misleading"

[Vlad]

(09-18-2018, 11:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: Wow is that an inane attempt to spin the truth to support your boys.

It is a complete (probably deliberate) misinterpretation of Matt's post.

That you and your usual suspects are trying to defend what you wrote above is very telling.

Hell, Matt doesn't always agree with me but at least I don't try to fabricate what he said just to make a political point.

Garland and Kavanaugh may end up with the exact same result from their nomination: Not getting approved.  One is under scrutiny because he probably wasn't vetted well enough (while the Republican controlled Senate attempts to force his nomination through it all) and the other had the misfortune of being nominated by a Democrat when Republicans controlled the Senate and would not even CONSIDER his nomination.  

Period.  

All the GOP spin in the world won't take the stink off that or off your boys.

And I'll preemptively say No, two wrongs do not make a right.  But the first wrong had no basis in anything other than partisan politics.  Democrats didn't make Kavanaugh lie under oath (twice) and they did write the letter accusing him of trying to sexually assault someone in HS...whether the latter is true or not.

The first "wrong" was not a wrong. Denying Garland a hearing was legal and constitutional.

McConnell denied Garland a hearing because he could. Plain and simple.

The stench is and always has been with democRATS…  this time its Feinstein scheming, holding on to this letter until the 11th hour after possessing it for 2.5 months...supposedly about an alleged sexual assault in which the "victim" has no recollection of the year, place, or time in which this "assault" occurred.

The hypocrisy of the democRATS is astounding...not a peep out of democRATS when Keith Ellison was accused of assault by his ex girlfriend who CAN provide facts, dates, and times.

How you folks can thoroughly deny the absurdity and underhandedness of democRATS  in this process says a lot.
You're all about defending your side, it's party before country.

[GMDino]

(09-19-2018, 07:55 PM)Vlad Wrote: The first "wrong" was not a wrong. Denying Garland a hearing was legal and constitutional.

McConnell denied Garland a hearing because he could. Plain and simple.

The stench is and always has been with democRATS…  this time its Feinstein scheming, holding on to this letter until the 11th hour after possessing it for 2.5 months...supposedly about an alleged sexual assault in which the "victim" has no recollection of the year, place, or time in which this "assault" occurred.

The hypocrisy of the democRATS is astounding...not a peep out of democRATS when Keith Ellison was accused of assault by his ex girlfriend who CAN provide facts, dates, and times.

How you folks can thoroughly deny the absurdity and underhandedness of democRATS  in this process says a lot.
You're all about defending your side, it's party before country.

Are you Frick or Frack?

[*bfine32*]

(09-19-2018, 07:53 PM)GMDino Wrote:

So it's all completely true except the photo adds the amount it actually was that Graham wanted to know who paid for.




"terribly misleading"

Right after typing the bolded a rational person would have said "yeah this is stupid" and took a different route.

[GMDino]

(09-19-2018, 08:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Right after typing the bolded a rational person would have said "yeah this is stupid" and took a different route.

He asked who paid for it.  There's a video of it.

The picture adds the actual amount...not quoting him saying that...but explaining how much that is.

I'll take your word that you know what "Stupid" is, but you haven't displayed that knowledge yet.

[*bfine32*]

(09-19-2018, 08:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: He asked who paid for it.  There's a video of it.

The picture adds the actual amount...not quoting him saying that...but explaining how much that is.

I'll take your word that you know what "Stupid" is, but you haven't displayed that knowledge yet.

Yeah, but the dollar amount the whole point of the meme (look at all the other dollar amounts he "added"). So defending the meme because it's all 100%, completely, without question, hand on the bible true EXCEPT for the dollar amount is a stupid thing to say to try to defend the meme.

Of course I don't know what stupid it EXCEPT I know it when I see it.

[Vlad]

(09-19-2018, 08:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: Are you Frick or Frack?

You would have been farther ahead by just not replying at all.