Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[GMDino]

(10-05-2018, 09:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: He literally says he agrees with my point, that Feinstein sat on this for political reasons.  That was the point I was making, he agreed with it, quit tap dancing.

...and then points out that solely laying "partisanship" on the side of the Democrats is a fallacy.

(10-05-2018, 09:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wait, did you just make a definitive accusation against me without knowing if it was true?

No, I just figured I'd give you a shot before I had to waste part of my morning doing this.

(09-14-2018, 08:57 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's rather obvious that Feinstein's "new information" is a an attempt to delay a confirmation vote.  If she had it all this time then why wait to release it until now?  Lastly, if it's about something he did in High School, unless it's horrifically criminal, it shouldn't matter at all.  Unless the Dem's new position is that people don't grow and mature from adolescence into adulthood, i.e. the very bedrock of the juvenile justice system.

(09-14-2018, 09:08 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quite honestly, unless the allegations or of a very serious nature, and this doesn't seem likely as nothing was apparently done about them when they were first made, then this is an obvious ploy to delay the final vote.  The timing couldn't make this anymore apparent.


Do you know how many hours of work went into to vetting this man's background?  Again, the likelihood of this being of any real importance is small to say the least.

(09-18-2018, 10:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, to a point.  An even better question here is "is it provable"?  Right now you have the accuser's version against Kavanaugh and his friend's word.  How do you prove an allegation from 35 years ago?  If there is no "proof" other than the accuser's word then I don't see how anyone could logically hold Kavanaugh to account for it.  Every Dem will, using #metoo as a political weapon, but should a logical, fair minded person judge anyone guilty based on a 35 year old accusation with no corroboration?


Exactly how will you know if that occurs?  Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the accuser's story is 100% true.  By her own account Kavanaugh was "staggering drunk".  he could truthfully say he has no memory of it ever happening even if it did.  Which leads us back to the original question, how are you even going to determine if the story is true?



But it absolutely is.  You're merely arguing degrees of severity while completely acknowledging my core point.  We're also discussing a completely unprovable allegation.  In any event, your view of the juvenile justice system is a bit outdated, at least by CA standards.  Record sealing is the norm for all juvenile offenses that successfully complete probation and the concept of pre-booking diversion has taken root with the aim at preventing juvenile offenders from even having an arrest record.

(09-20-2018, 03:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As described it would certainly be sexual battery.  If the accusation is true there's no way anyone could logically claim no crime was committed.  As to whether it would have ever been filed by the DA, based on experience I'd say there's little to no chance that the incident would have been prosecuted had it been reported back then.  The DA tends to avoid "one on one" cases, essentially when the only evidence is one person's word against another.  Throw in the drinking teenagers and the fuzzy memory about most of the incident and you're looking at a DIE, declined to file due to insufficient evidence.

(09-25-2018, 09:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Other allegations?  If you're referring to the New Yorker allegations, those have been roundly excoriated and don't appear to be worthy of serious consideration.  This is a rather widely held opinion.  Yes, some senators have said that the, he said she said, of an event thirty-five years old will not change their mind.  I can see their reasoning for saying so even if I don't agree with it.  


A reasonable point.  I would counter by saying that a delay of three days rather pales in the face of a delay of two months.  Point being, if the Dems wanted these allegations to be investigated at length they should have come forward with them when they received them, months ago.  As they did not it appears a thorough investigation is not really their objective.

(09-25-2018, 09:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Depends.  What doesn't depend is being able to claim you want a thorough investigation when your own actions show you clearly don't care about that at all.  Something about lying in the bed you made comes to mind.

(09-26-2018, 09:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes.  If a committee ends up with no female members from one party it can only be due to sexism.  I mean, it's not like both parties have a very structured way that these committee seats are apportioned or anything.


I'll reiterate.  If a full investigation (remind me why the FBI would investigate this non-Federal issue) was important to the Dems they would have asked for one when they first received the allegations, i.e. months ago.  They decided to play politics with it instead and it's apparently not going to work out for them.

Then after the THIRD allegation a bit of a change of heart....

(09-26-2018, 09:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

(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.

You didn't want an investigation and you didn't see a need for one because it was a long time ago, you don't think they can prove it and you believe he is innocent because, well, you.  

And you're not the only one.

You don't have to own that.  But don't tell me I'm "making stuff up".