Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[GMDino]

It's so much fun watching the "middle of the road" "open minded" folks on here be in the bag for Kavanaugh.  Convinced it's all a conspiracy.  Refusing to see anything that might change their minds.  Then saying Democrats are the problem.

It's cute.

I'll reiterate what I said:  Something happened to Ford.  This is how she remembers it.  He denies it.  That is how he remembers it.  We will never know what really happened.

I do know she answered every question (even if they were too "soft" for some on the right to stomach) and he interrupted and fired questions back at the committee.  

I get being angry.  Honestly.  But his making it a partisan attack rather a personal one turned me off.  Defend yourself.  Be loud.  Be strong.  Don't blame "conspiracies" and the Clintons.  He came off poorly from a PR standpoint.  Although I'm sure those who already supported him found nothing wrong with it because that is who he was performing for.  

More importantly, and unrelated to these accusations, he lied under oath..twice.  That's completely ignored.

Odds are good he'll be on the court before the first Monday in October.

[Bengalzona]

(09-27-2018, 10:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I cannot remember. Did the Dems say they were not going to vote for Gorsuch before he waa even nominated?

Did anyone call him evil?

Did they say their goal was not to confirm him?

It is not the same and most people know it. Gorsuch was expected, he was replacing one of the most conservative voices on SCOTUS and no amount of grandstanding could delay it for 2 years until then mid-terms. Kavs was not expected, he is replacing what was often a swing vote, and they are hoping they can delay long enough to get to November and call the current congress lame duck.

You can assert the Dems have no calculated plan here, just don't expect everyone to agree with it. Hell them Dems have even made known their conspiracy theory. 

You are assuming that Gorsuch would not have been put through a hearing like today's if similar allegations had been made about him.

Face it, he was just a cleaner candidate. Kavanaugh's hothead emotional explosion today demonstrates that.

The real question is, why won't the Republicans consider anyone else besides Kavanaugh?

[Dill]

(09-27-2018, 09:26 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Gee... I don't think we need a hothead who buys into conspiracy theories on the Supreme Court for life.

It's bad enough we have one of those in the White House.

Also, seeing this emotional outburst at not getting things just the way he wants them, I have to question his self-control... which makes me think that Dr. Ford's accusation is true.

I agree. I don't want that angry guy on the Supreme Court. Sounded like Hannity.

The toxic, unbalanced judgment of the misogynist chief exec spreads to the Supreme Court if K is voted in.

Guy has been on a mission to torpedo "the left" for decades--the Starr investigation, Florida 2000, the torture memos, Guantanamo, mass surveillance, "Jane Doe" in Texas. Whatever happened to selecting a nominee everyone could agree on?  Someone going to say moderate ,centrist, compromising "leftists" created this atmosphere?

[HarleyDog]

(09-27-2018, 10:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'll reiterate what I said:  Something happened to Ford. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-27-2018, 10:37 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Not the person who nominated him for the scotus. Which is the only reason i know who he is

It's a rather important point you're dodging.  Kavanaugh was confirmed to the second highest court in the land.  He's had numerous background checks conducted.  Your statement was that he was only nominated because Trump is a sexual deviant and therefore likes Kavanaugh as if they share a kinship in this regard.  So, again, I ask you was the person who put Kavanaugh in a position to be nominated to the SCOTUS by placing him in such a high position a sexual deviant too?

[NATI BENGALS]

(09-27-2018, 10:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the Dems and their backers will have to look for a new slant. Before the hearing folks were saying they find Ford to be more credible. Nothing to support this, they just did.

After the hearing credibility might have moved back toward Kavs. He had a journal documenting his whereabouts, explained many of the things in his yearbook and pointed to the fact that all 4 folks that Ford said were at the party state they remember no such party.

So now they will have to come up with other things.

Did she say she told her friends right away after it happened? I didnt watch most of it.

If there was not something memorable specifically involving you at a high school party do you remember all the other ones you went to that didnt have those lasting memories?

[Bengalzona]

(09-27-2018, 10:26 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Only a person who has made up his mind would refer to someone defending themselves against attempted rape charges as a hothead.

Apparently you didn't see my post #959 in the thread where I wrote:

Quote:Also, seeing this emotional outburst at not getting things just the way he wants them, I have to question his self-control... which makes me think that Dr. Ford's accusation is true.

But that's cool.

[*bfine32*]

(09-27-2018, 10:47 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: You are assuming that Gorsuch would not have been put through a hearing like today's if similar allegations had been made about him.

Face it, he was just a cleaner candidate. Kavanaugh's hothead emotional explosion today demonstrates that.

The real question is, why won't the Republicans consider anyone else besides Kavanaugh?

Nope, I'm assuming Gorsuch would have been put through the same ringer if he was nominated when Kavs was and the opposition had called him evil and said his nomination will cause folks to die

You and others say hothead likes it's a terrible thing. Face it, if he had showed no emotion those blaming him for getting fired up would be blaming him for not getting fired up enough. 

Because he is who POTUS nominated. 

The real question is why would you call him a rapist, simply because of unsubstantiated and in Ford's case refuted accusations? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-27-2018, 10:47 PM)Dill Wrote: Whatever happened to selecting a nominee everyone could agree on?  Someone going to say moderate ,centrist, compromising "leftists" created this atmosphere?

Sure, like Kagan or Sotomayor, nothing partisan about them at all.

[Dill]

(09-27-2018, 10:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: I get being angry.  Honestly.  But his making it a partisan attack rather a personal one turned me off.  Defend yourself.  Be loud.  Be strong.  Don't blame "conspiracies" and the Clintons.  He came off poorly from a PR standpoint.  Although I'm sure those who already supported him found nothing wrong with it because that is who he was performing for.  

More importantly, and unrelated to these accusations, he lied under oath..twice.  That's completely ignored.

Well I am watching Hannity right now, where I have learned that Kavanaugh is a hero who stood up to the conspiracy. And Lindsey Graham became the true "leader" of the Senate with his supporting speech, castigating his own senate colleagues.

Republicans have stood against the Democratic attempt to destroy a man "for poilitics." 

Now Juanita Broderick is on. Silence about the Clintons!  Liberal double-standard hypocrisy selective Dem outrage.

We should have believed Juanita then,

but not Ford now.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-27-2018, 10:56 PM)Dill Wrote: Now Juanita Broderick is on. Silence about the Clintons!  Liberal double-standard hypocrisy selective Dem outrage.

We should have believed Juanita then,

but not Ford now.

Of course, the Dems say we shouldn't have believed her then, or now, but we should believe Ford.  That fact that you're so ignorant of how blinkered you are is tragically comic.

[Dill]

(09-27-2018, 10:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, like Kagan or Sotomayor, nothing partisan about them at all.

"Nothing partisan" has never been the standard, as every compromising moderate "leftist" knows.

[*bfine32*]

(09-27-2018, 10:51 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Did she say she told her friends right away after it happened? I didnt watch most of it.

If there was not something memorable specifically involving you at a high school party do you remember all the other ones you went to that didnt have those lasting memories?

Yeah, I remember most/all the parties I went to in HS and especially one where my friend left without my knowledge. 

Bottomline everyone says they do not remember the occasion, hell her friend says she doesn't even know Kavs. Whether you want to admit it or not; those things do not add to the credibility of the assertion. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-27-2018, 10:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: It's so much fun watching the "middle of the road" "open minded" folks on here be in the bag for Kavanaugh.  Convinced it's all a conspiracy.  Refusing to see anything that might change their minds.  Then saying Democrats are the problem.

I don't think Ford is a "conspiracy, I think she honestly believes what she says.  

Quote:It's cute.

Is it, sweetie?

Quote:I'll reiterate what I said:  Something happened to Ford.  This is how she remembers it.  He denies it.  That is how he remembers it.  We will never know what really happened.

Completely true.

Quote:I do know she answered every question (even if they were too "soft" for some on the right to stomach) and he interrupted and fired questions back at the committee.  

You mean the accused defended himself?!?!  I'm aghast!

Quote:I get being angry.  Honestly.  But his making it a partisan attack rather a personal one turned me off.  Defend yourself.  Be loud.  Be strong.  Don't blame "conspiracies" and the Clintons.  He came off poorly from a PR standpoint.  Although I'm sure those who already supported him found nothing wrong with it because that is who he was performing for.  

He believes he's the victim of a partisan witch hunt.  If he is innocent of these allegations then he is precisely correct.  So, again, it all boils down to who you believe.

Quote:More importantly, and unrelated to these accusations, he lied under oath..twice.  That's completely ignored.

Didn't happen.  We've been over this, if he was demonstrably guilty of perjury then the Dems on the committee would be all over it.  They aren't because he didn't.  Endless repetition will not change this.

Quote:Odds are good he'll be on the court before the first Monday in October.

We shall see.

[GMDino]

(09-27-2018, 10:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, I'm assuming Gorsuch would have been put through the same ringer if he was nominated when Kavs was and the opposition had called him evil and said his nomination will cause folks to die

You and others say hothead likes it's a terrible thing. Face it, if he had showed no emotion those blaming him for getting fired up would be blaming him for not getting fired up enough. 

Because he is who POTUS nominated. 

The real question is why would you call him a rapist, simply because of unsubstantiated and in Ford's case refuted accusations? 

You're making a lot of assumptions about things that didn't happen.


But this one:

Quote:Because he is who POTUS nominated. 

...is very interesting.  Who nominated Gorsuch?   

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-27-2018, 10:58 PM)Dill Wrote: "Nothing partisan" has never been the standard, as every compromising moderate "leftist" knows.

Then I wonder why you haven't pointed that out to the posters railing against how partisan Kavanaugh is.  Selective outrage possibly?

[*michaelsean*]

(09-27-2018, 10:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: So you haven't made up your mind?

No and I don’t think we will ever know investigation or not. There is zero corroborating evidence but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

[Bengalzona]

(09-27-2018, 10:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, I'm assuming Gorsuch would have been put through the same ringer if he was nominated when Kavs was and the opposition had called him evil and said his nomination will cause folks to die

You and others say hothead likes it's a terrible thing. Face it, if he had showed no emotion those blaming him for getting fired up would be blaming him for not getting fired up enough. 

Because he is who POTUS nominated. 

The real question is why would you call him a rapist, simply because of unsubstantiated and in Ford's case refuted accusations? 

He is a hothead. It's on film if you don't believe me. And being a hothead is not a good quality for judges, who have to listen and consider multiple viewpoints daily in their jobs.

And, actually, showing emotion like that makes him look like he has something to worry about. Innocent people who believe and trust in our legal system don't have to worry. Are you saying that a SCOTUS nominee doesn't trust and believe in our legal system?!?!?!

I call him a rapist because the POTUS refused to have FBI investigate to clear him of the charges and because the GOP-led hearing today refused to allow other witnesses. He very well may be a rapist. There are several that accuse him of sex crimes. Why would you fail to consider that as a possibility?

[NATI BENGALS]

(09-27-2018, 10:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's a rather important point you're dodging.  Kavanaugh was confirmed to the second highest court in the land.  He's had numerous background checks conducted.  Your statement was that he was only nominated because Trump is a sexual deviant and therefore likes Kavanaugh as if they share a kinship in this regard.  So, again, I ask you was the person who put Kavanaugh in a position to be nominated to the SCOTUS by placing him in such a high position a sexual deviant too?

Keep asking but i dont care. Did they question these women when they did his other background investigations?

Have you seen the people Trump picks? 

They do share the rich entitled white man kinship. 

Im about 99.9% sure trump paid off a porn star. Only reason im not 100% because i didnt see it. I am 100% sure he played of his bragging about sexual assault as locker room talk. I get it he is a big time shit bag and not everbody he chooses is like him and that corrupt. But damn. Uncomfortably high number of his peeps are perps.

[*bfine32*]

(09-27-2018, 11:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: You're making a lot of assumptions about things that didn't happen.


But this one:



...is very interesting.  Who nominated Gorsuch?   

You're really bad at this and should be ashamed.

I made an assumption because Zona asked me to make an assumption about the hypothetical he presented. Given I don't sit as high of a standard on questions I'll answer here that many do. 

Exactly. Did congress consider any other candidate after POTUS nominated Gorsuch?