Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[*michaelsean*]

(09-26-2018, 08:47 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL I give you a little cred, Mike, even when you ARE political!!

I’ll have to go find the post where you did that

[Belsnickel]

(09-26-2018, 08:56 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, I've been hearing that people she named all denied the events.  Sounds like a failure to corroborate, to me.  I'm sure that the NYT will present things that show them in the best, anti Right light that they can.

Where have you heard that from? I've heard from Kavanaugh's roommate that he used to get belligerently drunk and brag about his sexual exploits, which contradicts his statements. I've heard that his classmates were talking about Kavanaugh's behavior at Yale even before the first allegation came to light.

(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.

Is that journalism?  I don't think so.  I'm thinking that this whole deal is just something cooked up to delay the seating of our next Supreme Court Justice.

That's HuffPo, and honestly irrelevant to the conversation. If that is what has you thinking this is something just cooked up to delay the nomination, then you really didn't need much convincing for that to be the case.

(09-26-2018, 08:56 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Dude even when I agree with you correct me. I said when they are seated and you were like nah.

When they are seated? What are you talking about?

[*michaelsean*]

(09-26-2018, 09:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Where have you heard that from? I've heard from Kavanaugh's roommate that he used to get belligerently drunk and brag about his sexual exploits, which contradicts his statements. I've heard that his classmates were talking about Kavanaugh's behavior at Yale even before the first allegation came to light.


That's HuffPo, and honestly irrelevant to the conversation. If that is what has you thinking this is something just cooked up to delay the nomination, then you really didn't need much convincing for that to be the case.


When they are seated? What are you talking about?

Post 661

[Vlad]

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

[Belsnickel]

(09-26-2018, 09:13 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Post 661

Oh, lol. It's been a day.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-26-2018, 09:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh, lol. It's been a day.

Re-reading you didn’t actually correct me, just stated a preference.

[Vlad]

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-26-2018, 09:54 AM)michaelsean Wrote: But you've been here long enough to know SSF has mostly championed liberal causes.  

You would think, but apparently not.

(09-26-2018, 09:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, I think SSF would be a happy liberal if he was somewhere like my neck of the woods. I think California's Democratic party has turned him off from them. They are a special breed out there.

After reading this I think there's probably a lot of truth to it.  I dislike extremism, regardless of the form or ideology.  Our strain of liberalims in this state is quite beyond the pale.

(09-26-2018, 10:01 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Pro-choice, pro gay marriage, anti-Iraq, anti-monotheism, generally liked Obama off the top of my head.

You notice Fred acknowledged all of these but had to call out opposition to "common sense" gun laws.  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.

(09-26-2018, 11:15 AM)michaelsean Wrote: You know i'm standing right here, right?-SSF

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.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I just got a chance to read them, these new allegations are insane! They're as far beyond what I thought would be reported as possible. I do agree there has to be an investigation now, but I just don't see how multiple FBI background checks could miss something this big.



I will add this, if Kavanaugh is found to have done these things his career is over entirely and deservedly so. If any of his accusers are found to be lying, or even mistaken about Kavanaugh's, they need to pay a similar price.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-26-2018, 09:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You would think, but apparently not.


After reading this I think there's probably a lot of truth to it.  I dislike extremism, regardless of the form or ideology.  Our strain of liberalims in this state is quite beyond the pale.


You notice Fred acknowledged all of these but had to call out opposition to "common sense" gun laws.  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.

The last quote I was including myself. I all of a sudden realized we were talking about you like you weren’t around.

[GMDino]

(09-26-2018, 09:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

Eh, you;d think you;d see while I despise Trump I am "boxed in by my orthodoxy".  Hell, sometimes I admit I'm wrong.  Hard to do that when a see the "challenger as another or enemy".

But that won't change your view on me so...

THIS is boxed in by orthodoxy:

(09-26-2018, 11:24 AM)Vlad Wrote: How fitting the thread title.

Don't offer shekels or liberal heads here will explode.

Ask Eric.

https://baltimorejewishlife.com/news/news-detail.php?SECTION_ID=2&ARTICLE_ID=107908

In a lighthearted thread about donating to the board.

But keep up the good work! Glad to have another liberal on the board!

[Vlad]

Liar liar…

In another inconsistency, Ford told The Washington Post she was upset when Trump won in 2016, because Kavanaugh was mentioned as a Supreme Court pick. But Kavanaugh wasn’t added to Trump’s list of possibilities until November 2017, a full year later.

[Benton]

(09-26-2018, 09:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I do agree there has to be an investigation now, but I just don't see how multiple FBI background checks could miss something this big.

I dunno. I've had a few background checks (one former employee went to work for FBI, one guy I went to high school with went to the CIA, another works in military telecomm, another for CentComm). I don't recall any of the questions being "did you witness them drug girls for sex? Did you witness him gang rape anyone? Wag his wang in someone's face without permission?"

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-26-2018, 10:47 PM)Benton Wrote: I dunno. I've had a few background checks (one former employee went to work for FBI, one guy I went to high school with went to the CIA, another works in military telecomm, another for CentComm). I don't recall any of the questions being "did you witness them drug girls for sex? Did you witness him gang rape anyone? Wag his wang in someone's face without permission?"

I've had some done on me as well.  I doubt any of ours comes close to the level of scrutiny that an FBI check of a potential SCOTUS nominee approaches.  Not to mention the extreme vetting done by other parties.  The first two accusations I could see them missing.  The latest one honestly baffles me.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-26-2018, 10:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: Eh, you;d think you;d see while I despise Trump I am "boxed in by my orthodoxy".  Hell, sometimes I admit I'm wrong.  Hard to do that when a see the "challenger as another or enemy".

But that won't change your view on me so...

THIS is boxed in by orthodoxy:


In a lighthearted thread about donating to the board.

But keep up the good work!  Glad to have another liberal on the board!  

Comparing yourself to the most extreme among us rather looks like claiming you're not as racist as a Klan member.  It may be true, but it's still not a good look.

[GMDino]

(09-26-2018, 10:47 PM)Benton Wrote: I dunno. I've had a few background checks (one former employee went to work for FBI, one guy I went to high school with went to the CIA, another works in military telecomm, another for CentComm). I don't recall any of the questions being "did you witness them drug girls for sex? Did you witness him gang rape anyone? Wag his wang in someone's face without permission?"

They apparently didn't catch him lying under oath twice either.  Or figure out how he paid off a huge credit card debt so quickly.

But **** happens.

[Benton]

(09-26-2018, 10:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've had some done on me as well.  I doubt any of ours comes close to the level of scrutiny that an FBI check of a potential SCOTUS nominee approaches.  Not to mention the extreme vetting done by other parties.  The first two accusations I could see them missing.  The latest one honestly baffles me.

Obama was president for 7.5 years and there were still folks... Including the POTUS And members of Congress... Saying he wasn't a US citizen (along with loads of other stuff). If they don't bother to ask "are you a legal citizen" they probably don't get into sexual habits of the judical branch.


Seriously, though,I don't know why any of this would show up on a background check. Even a solid federal one. Overall, were mostly talking about a teenager at a prep school partaking in prep school behavior.  Background  checks look for the abnormal, not the socially accepted.

[Vlad]

I can see especially see the second one happening.

"You are so courageous".

Nauseating.

[Dill]

(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.

I've heard that the most hyper-partisan of these leftist extremists even condone misogyny and support ISIS. 

So inane!

If that doesn't turn people off from "liberalism" nothing will.

[Dill]

(09-26-2018, 11:55 PM)Benton Wrote: Obama was president for 7.5 years and there were still folks... Including the POTUS And members of Congress... Saying he wasn't a US citizen (along with loads of other stuff). If they don't bother to ask "are you a legal citizen" they probably don't get into sexual habits of the judical branch.


Seriously, though,I don't know why any of this would show up on a background check. Even a solid federal one. Overall, were mostly talking about a teenager at a prep school partaking in prep school behavior.  Background  checks look for the abnormal, not the socially accepted.

Also, people are notoriously reluctant to talk about sexual assault. The assaulters won't incriminate themselves and the victims are ashamed and fearful they won't be believed.

For years now we have been hearing stories of women who would not come forward for years, and how they are mishandled by police and courts. I thought it had become common knowledge by now that sexual assault has become a special category of crime reporting.  But suddenly we are back in 1955, or the leaders of one party are.

Why didn't Ford/Ramiriz/Swetnick come forward BACK THEN?!?  Might as well ask what they were wearing.