Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fundamental problem is that Democrats don't like Trump naming nominees for the Supreme court.

I understand that ....... but the way to change that is for Democrats to win the presidency. You can't lose a presidential election and then whine when the Republican president names the nominee.

Elections have consequences as none other than Obama said when he won the presidency.

If Trump had nominated Merrick Garland there would have been absolutely no outcry from Democrats. Or nominated Obama. Wouldn't either of those have been a nice, healing gesture for the nation?

That would have been a lovely healing gesture. But the GOP doesn’t want that; they want anarchy.

[Anonymous]

Those of you who are calling Brett Kavanaugh a rapist or saying things about him and his clerks are hurting the reasonable people here who think he should not have been nominated. At most, there was a credible allegation of attempted rape. Some think even that allegation was mis-directed. But calling him a rapist makes all who object to him as a Supreme Court Justice look -- detached from reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fundamental problem is that Democrats don't like Trump naming nominees for the Supreme court.

I understand that ....... but the way to change that is for Democrats to win the presidency. You can't lose a presidential election and then whine when the Republican president names the nominee.

Elections have consequences as none other than Obama said when he won the presidency.

If Trump had nominated Merrick Garland there would have been absolutely no outcry from Democrats. Or nominated Obama. Wouldn't either of those have been a nice, healing gesture for the nation?

That would have been a lovely healing gesture. But the GOP doesn’t want that; they want anarchy.

That would be Trump thumbing his nose at the people who elected him. A number of people voted for him because they vote based on SCOTUS picks.

It would be a "healing gesture" for the Democratic party to agree that 3rd trimester abortions should be rare and should only happen in truly challenging circumstances. (And, since 3rd trimester abortions are rare, and almost always happen in truly challenging circumstances, it wouldn't be much of a reach.) But you'd never see the Dems push that, because a number of people who vote Dem do so because they believe there should be absolutely no restrictions on abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Outwit, outlast and outplay" ...... from the reality program Survivor.

This is what McConnell and the Republicans did on Kavanaugh and the Democrats were lost and bewildered. They still don't know what hit them ..... like they don't know what hit them when Trump won the presidency.

^^^This sort of rhetoric is what defines the Republicans. It speaks to their machiavellian soul. And why the majority of Americans despise them.

Stop with the whining.

As far as what Americans feel about Republicans, since 2008 the Democrats lost an almost filibuster proof senate control, the House where they held a huge majority, the presidency, over 1000 state legislature seats and 14 governorships. If this equates to Americans despising "them", may be the Democrats should crave for some of that hate.

Yes, "outwit, outlast and outplay" is how Kavanaugh was confirmed - you can add "outfoxed". The dumbest move was when Democrats pushed for a FBI supplementary review which gave cover to the the senators who were the swing votes.

To top it off, the Democrats tactics energized a complacent Republican base even as Kavanaugh was confirmed - and the Democrats shot themselves in the foot!

Dumbness personified has been the Democratic strategy.

Cover? That was joke. They did not even interview Ford. Gave no cover at all. Collins is totally exposed with that vote as are all the swing voting senators.

Dr. Ford was given the opportunity to read her prepared (well prepared, I'm sure) statement with all the time she needed and her attorneys by her side. I would think she included all the details she could recall.

DP, but I think you're missing half the issue with the FBI not interviewing Ford. An interview wouldn't have been just about getting Ford's account of what happened, it would also be for challenging her on inconsistencies between her claims and what they learned from other people they interviewed. If the FBI came back from all of the interviews they did and didn't have a single follow-up question for either Ford or Kavanaugh to get clarity on some point, I'd question whether they did their job at all. Since neither of them was interviewed by the FBI, it was almost necessarily an incomplete investigation because when people are trying to remember things from that long ago, there are bound to be some inconsistencies in accounts, even if they go to surrounding circumstances and not the allegations themselves.

PP here. I appreciate your post and what you said. It's one reason I'm so disgusted by Feinstein's office sitting on the info. It's just wrong all around.

My comment had nothing to do with Feinstein, I think you may have misread it.

PP here. I do get what you wrote. I was just adding my own thoughts about Feinstein and didn't mean to suggest that's what you thought, too.

Good, because I agree with Feinstein's decision to respect Ford's wishes and not release the letter. While there was public value to the allegations coming out, the victim's rights should come first.

PP here. We'll have to agree to disagree. I think the timing was beyond suspect, given the extremely liberal, activist attorneys she had. These allegations should be have been investigated weeks earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole Democratic argument about the sexual assault went off the rails when Avenatti and Swetnick started with the gang rape nonsense.

It took away from Ford's overall credible testimony .........

Such outright incompetence; the Democrats really need better leadership.

No, it was Brett Kavanaugh's angry performance that did it. After Ford's testimony, everybody said she was credible and the Republicans were nervous. After Kavanaugh spoke, everybody was impressed with his "passionate" defense even though his answers were evasive and not credible.

We live in the time of Donald Trump. Calm testimony is worthless. Anger rules the day.

DP

You do know that a certain segment said she was credible (able to be believed, convincing) did so because that was a nice gesture and did not mean they believed she was accusing the right person. Or even that she was telling the truth.

No, it was the same people. The pundits on TV, political staff who were there, even Donald Trump. "Credible" no long means "factual correct." Credible is a sort of performance art, play it the right way and you win. Ford played one way, Kavanaugh another. Kavanaugh's way won.

It's a very sad commentary on our current political discourse.

[Anonymous]

[guardian]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are a liar, PP.

The propaganda machine has emboldened Trump to call Ford
a hoax, walking back his earlier statements, and every non-Republican a member of a mob. The thirst Trumpers have for civil war and violence, as begun by this dehumanization, gets nearer.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/horrified-trump-mockery-threats-blasey-ford

It’s not clear that Ford will be safe in a week or month or year. Because of posters here. Whipping shit at her. Eventually, this gets to less and less stable right wingers, for whom “action” seems reasonable: it just takes one person, like the guy who went full Alex Jones and fired shots at Comet Ping Pong Pizza.

Jeff: at a certain point, one we’ve all hit, the people you should ban from posting or even reading are the ones still fomenting anger at Ford. This is serious.

Huh? Are you saying that those of us who do not believe Ford's story, and think that the Democrats exploited her, should be banned? Is that somehow fomenting anger? Or, more directly, are you suggesting that only those who believe that Kavanaugh assaulted Ford should be allowed to post?

Huh? Are you lying and pretending that posters exactly like you aren’t insisting she’s lying and mentally ill and part of a plot and thus enhancing the odds that some vengeful truth-seeker will actually attack her?

You are. You are doing this. Crying Brett did not have to flee his house despite alleged threats. Ford has had to. You’re a gross person and a coward for pushing lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fundamental problem is that Democrats don't like Trump naming nominees for the Supreme court.

I understand that ....... but the way to change that is for Democrats to win the presidency. You can't lose a presidential election and then whine when the Republican president names the nominee.

Elections have consequences as none other than Obama said when he won the presidency.

If Trump had nominated Merrick Garland there would have been absolutely no outcry from Democrats. Or nominated Obama. Wouldn't either of those have been a nice, healing gesture for the nation?

That would have been a lovely healing gesture. But the GOP doesn’t want that; they want anarchy.

That would be Trump thumbing his nose at the people who elected him. A number of people voted for him because they vote based on SCOTUS picks.

It would be a "healing gesture" for the Democratic party to agree that 3rd trimester abortions should be rare and should only happen in truly challenging circumstances. (And, since 3rd trimester abortions are rare, and almost always happen in truly challenging circumstances, it wouldn't be much of a reach.) But you'd never see the Dems push that, because a number of people who vote Dem do so because they believe there should be absolutely no restrictions on abortion.

What anti choice nonsense are you mumbling here? Do you legitimately think women are aborting eight and nine month fetuses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fundamental problem is that Democrats don't like Trump naming nominees for the Supreme court.

I understand that ....... but the way to change that is for Democrats to win the presidency. You can't lose a presidential election and then whine when the Republican president names the nominee.

Elections have consequences as none other than Obama said when he won the presidency.

If Trump had nominated Merrick Garland there would have been absolutely no outcry from Democrats. Or nominated Obama. Wouldn't either of those have been a nice, healing gesture for the nation?

That would have been a lovely healing gesture. But the GOP doesn’t want that; they want anarchy.

That would be Trump thumbing his nose at the people who elected him. A number of people voted for him because they vote based on SCOTUS picks.

It would be a "healing gesture" for the Democratic party to agree that 3rd trimester abortions should be rare and should only happen in truly challenging circumstances. (And, since 3rd trimester abortions are rare, and almost always happen in truly challenging circumstances, it wouldn't be much of a reach.) But you'd never see the Dems push that, because a number of people who vote Dem do so because they believe there should be absolutely no restrictions on abortion.

What anti choice nonsense are you mumbling here? Do you legitimately think women are aborting eight and nine month fetuses?

Read it again, slower this time. Perhaps without your knee hitting you in the head and obstructing your vision. Here's a tip: pay particular attention to the parenthetical phrase.

[Anonymous]

The ones who totally believe Ford are the ones who have not bothered to read about all the discrepancies in her testimony. I found her "credible"--but it was based on emotion. She was pitiful.

There are lots of gaps in her testimony--memory lapses from two months ago, not just 35 or so years or so--give or take two years. (hint: That's one of the gaps, she changed the year from the time she wrote her letter to the polygraph and back.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fundamental problem is that Democrats don't like Trump naming nominees for the Supreme court.

I understand that ....... but the way to change that is for Democrats to win the presidency. You can't lose a presidential election and then whine when the Republican president names the nominee.

Elections have consequences as none other than Obama said when he won the presidency.

If Trump had nominated Merrick Garland there would have been absolutely no outcry from Democrats. Or nominated Obama. Wouldn't either of those have been a nice, healing gesture for the nation?

That would have been a lovely healing gesture. But the GOP doesn’t want that; they want anarchy.

That would be Trump thumbing his nose at the people who elected him. A number of people voted for him because they vote based on SCOTUS picks.

It would be a "healing gesture" for the Democratic party to agree that 3rd trimester abortions should be rare and should only happen in truly challenging circumstances. (And, since 3rd trimester abortions are rare, and almost always happen in truly challenging circumstances, it wouldn't be much of a reach.) But you'd never see the Dems push that, because a number of people who vote Dem do so because they believe there should be absolutely no restrictions on abortion.

What anti choice nonsense are you mumbling here? Do you legitimately think women are aborting eight and nine month fetuses?

Read it again, slower this time. Perhaps without your knee hitting you in the head and obstructing your vision. Here's a tip: pay particular attention to the parenthetical phrase.

DP. Why do you think it's necessary to legislate that? What is happening today that needs to change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ones who totally believe Ford are the ones who have not bothered to read about all the discrepancies in her testimony. I found her "credible"--but it was based on emotion. She was pitiful.

There are lots of gaps in her testimony--memory lapses from two months ago, not just 35 or so years or so--give or take two years. (hint: That's one of the gaps, she changed the year from the time she wrote her letter to the polygraph and back.)

I haven't shared this before but my wife was sexuality assaulted when she was a teen and the details have remained with her since. If she had a beer before the assault I would expect her memory to be as sharp. If she had 3, maybe not so much. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't believe her. 5, 6 or more in short order I would wonder if she really was sober enough to know for certain. That said, she feels that something is wrong with Ford's recounting especially given the I only had one beer.

Is it possible Ford is telling the truth about the assault but lying about the number of drinks so as to not call into question the veracity? Sure. And what I wrote above is an example of why.

Since the early 80's is long gone what about the past 28 years since he began clerking on the Court of Appeals. Any claims of sexual harassment? How about claims of sexism? Unfair labor practices? DUI's? Anything?

I won't exonerate him nor will I affirm her...both have problems in areas with their 'stories' and therefore with everything before me I have to say that I don't really know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ones who totally believe Ford are the ones who have not bothered to read about all the discrepancies in her testimony. I found her "credible"--but it was based on emotion. She was pitiful.

There are lots of gaps in her testimony--memory lapses from two months ago, not just 35 or so years or so--give or take two years. (hint: That's one of the gaps, she changed the year from the time she wrote her letter to the polygraph and back.)

I haven't shared this before but my wife was sexuality assaulted when she was a teen and the details have remained with her since. If she had a beer before the assault I would expect her memory to be as sharp. If she had 3, maybe not so much. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't believe her. 5, 6 or more in short order I would wonder if she really was sober enough to know for certain. That said, she feels that something is wrong with Ford's recounting especially given the I only had one beer.

Is it possible Ford is telling the truth about the assault but lying about the number of drinks so as to not call into question the veracity? Sure. And what I wrote above is an example of why.

Since the early 80's is long gone what about the past 28 years since he began clerking on the Court of Appeals. Any claims of sexual harassment? How about claims of sexism? Unfair labor practices? DUI's? Anything?

I won't exonerate him nor will I affirm her...both have problems in areas with their 'stories' and therefore with everything before me I have to say that I don't really know.

^^^ DCUM, please take note. The above is what a rational adult sounds like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ones who totally believe Ford are the ones who have not bothered to read about all the discrepancies in her testimony. I found her "credible"--but it was based on emotion. She was pitiful.

There are lots of gaps in her testimony--memory lapses from two months ago, not just 35 or so years or so--give or take two years. (hint: That's one of the gaps, she changed the year from the time she wrote her letter to the polygraph and back.)

I haven't shared this before but my wife was sexuality assaulted when she was a teen and the details have remained with her since. If she had a beer before the assault I would expect her memory to be as sharp. If she had 3, maybe not so much. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't believe her. 5, 6 or more in short order I would wonder if she really was sober enough to know for certain. That said, she feels that something is wrong with Ford's recounting especially given the I only had one beer.

Is it possible Ford is telling the truth about the assault but lying about the number of drinks so as to not call into question the veracity? Sure. And what I wrote above is an example of why.

Since the early 80's is long gone what about the past 28 years since he began clerking on the Court of Appeals. Any claims of sexual harassment? How about claims of sexism? Unfair labor practices? DUI's? Anything?

I won't exonerate him nor will I affirm her...both have problems in areas with their 'stories' and therefore with everything before me I have to say that I don't really know.

Nothing. Not a hint of anything. He has hired more women as clerks than men. And, no claims of sexual harassment or sexism.
That tells you something right there. It is very difficult to believe that someone who did the things he was accused of by the three women has changed his stripes.

[Anonymous]

Lots of rational adults don't think he belongs promoted to scotus. Outstanding legal career and he is a federal judge. He is not entitled to or deserving of scotus where he wields enormous powered over your children and mine. In spite of the hysterical carrying on from the right about innocent until proven guilty which had nothing to do with a job promotion, only a legal proceeding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those of you who are calling Brett Kavanaugh a rapist or saying things about him and his clerks are hurting the reasonable people here who think he should not have been nominated. At most, there was a credible allegation of attempted rape. Some think even that allegation was mis-directed. But calling him a rapist makes all who object to him as a Supreme Court Justice look -- detached from reality.

I called him an attempted rapist. However, it is highly that he continued attempting to rape and rv
Eventually succeeded and probably more than once.