Kavanaugh 2.0

16,298 Views | 202 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Osodecentx
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Jinx 2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

Jinx 2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

Jinx shows an awful lot of hate to be judging Christians here.
Only the hypocrites.
Not so. You have great sympathy for progressive hypocrites, and also great bitterness at honest conservatives, Jinx.

And we are all of us hypocrites at one time or another. Sort of why Jesus warned Peter that he would deny him three times, before it happened.
Usually, I ignore you because I don't think you're rational. You accuse anyone who disagrees with you of lying.

I don't disrespect honest conservatives. I just haven't met many. And certainly none on this site.
Jinx, with all respect you see everything here through a filter of bigotry. That happens with certain people of course. Florda does that on the conservative side, as does Golem. And of course, cinque cannot say one good word about anyone who does not share his politics.

Stepping aside from various opinions on Donald Trump, consider that more than sixty-two million good, decent Americans voted for him. And they still support him. If you can only believe that those people are mindless haters who are bad people, you are making the same mistake as those people who think that anyone who voted for Hillary Clinton must be a mad, immoral person.

Surely you see where that leads?

It's not about what I think of you, or you of me. It's about greater things.
Kudos for taking the high road. Sadly, most days I'm past caring about making the effort any more since I can't see that it leads anywhere. I think that's a big part of the reason Trump appeals to me on some level; he's the personification of a giant middle finger to all of the left and many of the elitists on the right.
Kyle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

Jinx 2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

Jinx shows an awful lot of hate to be judging Christians here.
Only the hypocrites.
Not so. You have great sympathy for progressive hypocrites, and also great bitterness at honest conservatives, Jinx.

And we are all of us hypocrites at one time or another. Sort of why Jesus warned Peter that he would deny him three times, before it happened.
Usually, I ignore you because I don't think you're rational. You accuse anyone who disagrees with you of lying.

I don't disrespect honest conservatives. I just haven't met many. And certainly none on this site.
You really are a model of low EQ. I mean, much of your worldview is past on lies:
1. Muslim ban
2. Anti-immigration
3. Russian hackers
4. Fake rape
5. White nationalist bogeymen
6. Fake Race Cards

I get you're uber-judgy, but I really wonder if your gall to judge "honesty" is genuine lack of EQ or just screwing with people a la Ruckus.
Kyle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

Jinx 2 said:

curtpenn said:

Jinx 2 said:

curtpenn said:

Thanks so much for sharing. Linda is my all time favorite singer. If I could only listen to the works of one contemporary artist for the rest of my life, she'd be the one.
OK, there's one thing we agree on.

But Linda's a liberal. Dated Jerry Brown, hardly a conservative, seriously. Not a Trumpet. Disgusted by guys like him. And...she's female, smart, talented and independent. These deficits don't matter to you?
Nope. Bought all of her albums in the '70s-'80s (as well as Emmy Lou Harris') and then CDs of most of them, as well. Everything from country rock to big band standards plus pop, new wave, and Canciones (reminds me of growing up in San Antonio). Saw her in concert at SMU's McFarlin Auditorium in the late '70s. Breaks my heart Parkinson's has stilled her voice. FWIW, I'm very partial to smart, talented, and independent women such as my mother, my wife, and our daughter.
Did they vote for Trump?

Do they buy into a political and religious ideology where women are second-class citizens who probably shouldn't have the vote because they're too emotional + pregnancy + menopause, and crass, crude and nasty behavior is acceptable as long as Trump did it?
Why, yes my wife and mother voted for Trump just as I did recognizing the clear existential threat to our republic posed by the fascists on the left as represented by Hillary. Don't think our daughter voted as she was not that interested in politics and was pretty occupied with her first child turning one near the election. I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp that one needn't care for some of the President's failings and yet approve of most of his platform. This isn't really that complicated.

Since you seem to be ok with slaughtering about a thousand baby girls every day in the US, why do you get so worked up about Trump?
Because progressives today can barely formulate a rational argument ... they rely on dishonest, hyperbolic emotion to enflame the masses and feed red meat to the Brownshirts.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

JXL said:

Jinx 2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

How in the hell can these people even pretend that they support Democracy?


I had that same question--how the hell can these people claim to support democracy?-when Mitch McConnell wouldn't even meet with Merrick Garland or consider his nomination. I think you and every other conservative posting on this board underestimate exactly how wrong, undemocratic and partisan that was, and that it's viewed by most Democrats as undermining both the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the nomination process.

Gorsuch is illegitimate because he's occupying a stolen seat, although he's certainly qualified to sit on SCOTUS; Kavanaugh because he's a jerk and doesn't belong there for reasons of character--not so much because he was a mean drunk in high school and college, but because of that tantrum. If a female nominee had thrown such a tantrum during what amounts to a very high-profile job interview, she's have been dismissed as too emotional to sit on a Court that's supposed to dispense impartial justice. Kavanaugh was viewed as rightly defending himself by Trump/hard-right-wingers. The double standard working overtime.

But trying to impeach Kavanaugh or otherwise unseat him is a bad idea, IMO, and it won't work. I'm not in favor of it, not because I like Brett Kavanaugh, but because he's seated already, however he was railroaded through by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who clearly weren't interested in investigating Kavanaugh's past, nor a concern of Trump and his supporters.

Trump--and following his lead, most people posting here-- have painted Blasey Ford (who had no compelling reason whatsoever to come forward other than her personal sense that Kavanaugh shouldn't sit on SCOTUS), Debbie Ramirez and others, as liars, dupes and tool of some calculated "leftist" campaign to smear the otherwise sterling character of Brett Kavanaugh.

But here's the thing: since these allegation arose at the time of the "Me, too" movement (which I realize those of you posting on this thread scorn either because you think women lie or because you don't think sexual harassment rises to the level of disqualifying anyone for office), Democrats felt that they had to respond, even at the great political cost that resulted. Kirstin Gillebrand had insisted Al Franken resign from HIS seat over lesser allegations. Lots of women were watching to see what would happen. Everybody remembered Clarence Thomas, and it's since become clear to everyone but hard-core "party-faithful-inerrancy" Republicans that Anita Hill's allegations were true and Clarence Thomas didn't belong on SCOTUS. He certainly lacks the intellectual heft of most of his colleagues, with the exception of Alito.

And it wasn't lost on anyone that the older, white, male Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee didn't want to do any meaningful investigation. The FBI investigation they finally grudgingly consented to was superficial and incomplete and omitted key figures like Mark Judge (who probably doesn't remember much about high school, anyway, thanks to his lifelong alcoholism). And they--strategically rightly and morally wrongly--trashed the character allegations against Kavanaugh and the woman/woman who brought them.

I attended a lunch meeting yesterday of the Federalist society that featured a prominent conservative judge and a conservative legal scholar. The judge, a BYU graduate, decried the treatment of Kavanaugh. How could we go much lower? he asked.

The scholar mentioned what happened with Merrick Garland. He pointed out that Republicans AND Democrats had been engaged in a race to the bottom over judicial appointments for 2 decades--really, ever since David Suter disappointed conservatives. He agreed that the treatment of Kavanaugh was unjust, but he also said the way the Republicans treated Merrick Garland and dissed Obama was terrible--and that he thought the tit for tat over judicial appointments would continue until we hit rock bottom. His question was, whether this is rock bottom. I'm afraid it isn't. He didn't think it was, either.


Interesting argument about Gorsuch and the "stolen seat." You're saying the seat belonged to Garland by right before the Senate acted? That's the only way it could have been "stolen."

And the judicial nomination process has been a race to the bottom - at least as far as Republican nominees go - ever since an unprecedented smear campaign was launched against Robert Bork.
Obama was smart. Garland would have been MUCH harder for a Senate working properly, honorably and in a bipartisan manner to oppose.

MUCH harder than Gorsuch, clearly a hard right appointee.

So McConnell's only strategy was to shut him out completely. And he did it. He's selling us out to Trump and Putin. His wife is selling us out to China. And you folks are complicit, thanks to the Trump inerrancy doctrine.


Biden Rule, again.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Buddha Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

riflebear said:

I blame the media more than actual Dems. They indoctrinate people and unfortunately these people believe all their lies. Finally they are being exposed but we still have 40% of the country who believes everything they put out including all their lies and misleading articles. Unfortunately most professors fall into that category. Take back our universities and this would stop very fast, unfortunately that will never happen.
Not just professors...cinque, Waco and jinx gobble up whatever is fed to them. Even when the truth comes out, they still want to believe the lie.
I mean ya that does happen. But can we include the hard right wing posters on this site too?

When a shooting happens, the lefties get all angry immediately. Then the right posters say "Hold on, let's wait and see until all the facts come out". Then the facts do come out, and the righties are either unresponsive, or they find a way to link the shooter to socialist ideologies using a Breitbart affiliated fringe site claiming to know that facts.

The extreme left and right are one in the same to me. When you are an extremist, you gobble up any confirmation of your bias regardless of it's right or left political leanings.

GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kyle said:

curtpenn said:

Jinx 2 said:

curtpenn said:

Jinx 2 said:

curtpenn said:

Thanks so much for sharing. Linda is my all time favorite singer. If I could only listen to the works of one contemporary artist for the rest of my life, she'd be the one.
OK, there's one thing we agree on.

But Linda's a liberal. Dated Jerry Brown, hardly a conservative, seriously. Not a Trumpet. Disgusted by guys like him. And...she's female, smart, talented and independent. These deficits don't matter to you?
Nope. Bought all of her albums in the '70s-'80s (as well as Emmy Lou Harris') and then CDs of most of them, as well. Everything from country rock to big band standards plus pop, new wave, and Canciones (reminds me of growing up in San Antonio). Saw her in concert at SMU's McFarlin Auditorium in the late '70s. Breaks my heart Parkinson's has stilled her voice. FWIW, I'm very partial to smart, talented, and independent women such as my mother, my wife, and our daughter.
Did they vote for Trump?

Do they buy into a political and religious ideology where women are second-class citizens who probably shouldn't have the vote because they're too emotional + pregnancy + menopause, and crass, crude and nasty behavior is acceptable as long as Trump did it?
Why, yes my wife and mother voted for Trump just as I did recognizing the clear existential threat to our republic posed by the fascists on the left as represented by Hillary. Don't think our daughter voted as she was not that interested in politics and was pretty occupied with her first child turning one near the election. I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp that one needn't care for some of the President's failings and yet approve of most of his platform. This isn't really that complicated.

Since you seem to be ok with slaughtering about a thousand baby girls every day in the US, why do you get so worked up about Trump?
Because progressives today can barely formulate a rational argument ... they rely on dishonest, hyperbolic emotion to enflame the masses and feed red meat to the Brownshirts.
I find this ironic coming from someone who is obviously intelligent, but buys the Trump/FoxNews/Brietbart/Limbaugh narrative hook, line and sinker and eats all the white meat they dish up.
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

curtpenn said:

Don't care. Not Hillary (or any other Dem). Good times.
I know. All you good Christians are really eager to say f--k you, as often and as loud as you can, to anyone who doesn't fall in line behind your narrow, pointy version of Christianity and its vision for the country's future marching along behind Trump's church-o-god preacher hair and his mean agenda.

Whatever respect I had for the sincere faith of evangelicals and what I'd assumed was at least a serious pretense (as in, you didn't want to, but felt your faith required it) of serving a God of love who preaches a gospel of "Love your enemy" is totally gone.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I have never said that to you. I have disagreed with you...probably too harshly at times. I don't hate you. I don't wish you ill will. Can we not disagree and still get along somewhat?

I do not believe in abortion, but a woman's right to choose BEFORE she gets pregnant. I don't want abortion outlawed.

I don't believe that man is the reason for climate change and I am all for helping out the environment to an extent.

I voted for Trump because he was significantly better than Hillary. While I do not support everything he does or says, I see no reason to come on a college message board and whine and complain about it. It seems as if you take my silence as approval...it's not.

Our country is obviously better off with Trump as president and I understand why some of our allies do not like him...they are finally having to shell out more cash as the US isn't paying everyone's way anymore.

I understand that you don't like Trump but have you ever said anything positive about him? It seems as if you are triggered by everything he says and does.
Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
ScottS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Jinx shows an awful lot of hate to be judging Christians here.


Yep liberals are famous for judging others and yet not looking in the mirror themselves.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ScottS said:

Oldbear83 said:

Jinx shows an awful lot of hate to be judging Christians here.


Yep liberals are famous for judging others and yet not looking in the mirror themselves.
It's a human condition more than tied to just one end of the political spectrum.

I only mentioned it here, because I hoped to remind her that better options exist.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
contrario
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

Jinx 2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

Jinx shows an awful lot of hate to be judging Christians here.
Only the hypocrites.
Not so. You have great sympathy for progressive hypocrites, and also great bitterness at honest conservatives, Jinx.

And we are all of us hypocrites at one time or another. Sort of why Jesus warned Peter that he would deny him three times, before it happened.
Usually, I ignore you because I don't think you're rational. You accuse anyone who disagrees with you of lying.

I don't disrespect honest conservatives. I just haven't met many. And certainly none on this site.
How is that different than accusing anyone that disagrees with you as being a racist or bigot of some sort?

If you haven't met many, then that means you aren't looking as hard. As someone that is in the middle like myself, I have met good people on both the left and right and I have met bad people, as many both on the left and the right. The issue for you is that you agree with those on the left, so you ignore the bad eggs and you disagree with those on the right, so you project any caricature you have of a republican onto them. There is nothing about conservatism or liberalism that makes a person good or bad. At our cores, we are all good. We all want solutions to the same problems. We just disagree on the solutions to those problems. Yes, there are some extremes on both sides, but projecting those extremes onto anyone that disagrees with you isn't the most effective way to find solutions that could possibly make both sides happy.
OldBurlyBear86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

MoneyBear said:

Jinx 2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

How in the hell can these people even pretend that they support Democracy?


Trying to impeach Kavanaugh or otherwise unseat him is a bad idea, and it won't work. I'm not in favor of it, not because I like Brett Kavanaugh, but because he's seated already, however he was railroaded through by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary

But I had that same question when Mitch McConnell wouldn't even meet with Merrick Garland or consider his nomination. I think you and every other conservative posting on this board underestimate exactly how wrong, undemocratic and partisan that was.

I attended a lunch meeting yesterday of the Federalist society that featured a prominent conservative judge and a conservative legal scholar. The judge, a BYU graduate, decried the treatment of Kavanaugh. How could we go much lower? he asked.

The scholar mentioned what happened with Merrick Garland. He pointed out that Republicans AND Democrats had been engaged in a race to the bottom over judicial appointments for 2 decades--really, ever since David Suter disappointed conservatives. He agreed that the treatment of Kavanaugh was unjust, but he also said the way the Republicans treated Merrick Garland and dissed Obama was terrible--and that he thought the tit for tat over judicial appointments would continue until we hit rock bottom. His question was, whether this is rock bottom. I'm afraid it isn't.

We've been headed to rock bottom for a very long time. When judges became partisan weapons. It's true of both sides. Judges were intended to interpret the constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN not read their rulings into it. Just try finding a right abortion in the constitution, it's not there despite what so many people think. It's a perfect example of judicial overreach and that's why the justices matter so much to both sides. If it were truly the "law of the land" then there would be AN ACTUAL LAW that upheld it. The legislative branch has failed in its mission and that has cause/forced judges to legislate from the bench. It is wrong and was never the intent of our checks and balances system but because it is the case, the executive branch will attempt to stack the courts so that the legislation that comes from the bench will favor their party's platform.
We have the same disagreement about the reading of the constitution as we do about the bible. And even among conservatives, there's textualism versus originalism. A court that includes a mix of perspectives is more likely to be just. McConnell made it clear that balance is not his goal when he refused to talk with Garland.

btw, abortion isn't the only issue the court decides, and not, IMO, even the most important one. Cases addressing needed regulation to address climate change, however that might be, followed by protections of voting rights and free speech, ranks right up there.
I was at the discussion at the ATT Conference center, UT Campus, on Tuesday, and no such discussion took place. As a passive Federalist, I would love to get hold of that transcript. All I need is the location. I have scanned all pertinent meetings that took place on the 17th and cannot locate it.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GrowlTowel said:

Jinx 2 said:

JXL said:

Jinx 2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

How in the hell can these people even pretend that they support Democracy?


I had that same question--how the hell can these people claim to support democracy?-when Mitch McConnell wouldn't even meet with Merrick Garland or consider his nomination. I think you and every other conservative posting on this board underestimate exactly how wrong, undemocratic and partisan that was, and that it's viewed by most Democrats as undermining both the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the nomination process.

Gorsuch is illegitimate because he's occupying a stolen seat, although he's certainly qualified to sit on SCOTUS; Kavanaugh because he's a jerk and doesn't belong there for reasons of character--not so much because he was a mean drunk in high school and college, but because of that tantrum. If a female nominee had thrown such a tantrum during what amounts to a very high-profile job interview, she's have been dismissed as too emotional to sit on a Court that's supposed to dispense impartial justice. Kavanaugh was viewed as rightly defending himself by Trump/hard-right-wingers. The double standard working overtime.

But trying to impeach Kavanaugh or otherwise unseat him is a bad idea, IMO, and it won't work. I'm not in favor of it, not because I like Brett Kavanaugh, but because he's seated already, however he was railroaded through by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who clearly weren't interested in investigating Kavanaugh's past, nor a concern of Trump and his supporters.

Trump--and following his lead, most people posting here-- have painted Blasey Ford (who had no compelling reason whatsoever to come forward other than her personal sense that Kavanaugh shouldn't sit on SCOTUS), Debbie Ramirez and others, as liars, dupes and tool of some calculated "leftist" campaign to smear the otherwise sterling character of Brett Kavanaugh.

But here's the thing: since these allegation arose at the time of the "Me, too" movement (which I realize those of you posting on this thread scorn either because you think women lie or because you don't think sexual harassment rises to the level of disqualifying anyone for office), Democrats felt that they had to respond, even at the great political cost that resulted. Kirstin Gillebrand had insisted Al Franken resign from HIS seat over lesser allegations. Lots of women were watching to see what would happen. Everybody remembered Clarence Thomas, and it's since become clear to everyone but hard-core "party-faithful-inerrancy" Republicans that Anita Hill's allegations were true and Clarence Thomas didn't belong on SCOTUS. He certainly lacks the intellectual heft of most of his colleagues, with the exception of Alito.

And it wasn't lost on anyone that the older, white, male Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee didn't want to do any meaningful investigation. The FBI investigation they finally grudgingly consented to was superficial and incomplete and omitted key figures like Mark Judge (who probably doesn't remember much about high school, anyway, thanks to his lifelong alcoholism). And they--strategically rightly and morally wrongly--trashed the character allegations against Kavanaugh and the woman/woman who brought them.

I attended a lunch meeting yesterday of the Federalist society that featured a prominent conservative judge and a conservative legal scholar. The judge, a BYU graduate, decried the treatment of Kavanaugh. How could we go much lower? he asked.

The scholar mentioned what happened with Merrick Garland. He pointed out that Republicans AND Democrats had been engaged in a race to the bottom over judicial appointments for 2 decades--really, ever since David Suter disappointed conservatives. He agreed that the treatment of Kavanaugh was unjust, but he also said the way the Republicans treated Merrick Garland and dissed Obama was terrible--and that he thought the tit for tat over judicial appointments would continue until we hit rock bottom. His question was, whether this is rock bottom. I'm afraid it isn't. He didn't think it was, either.


Interesting argument about Gorsuch and the "stolen seat." You're saying the seat belonged to Garland by right before the Senate acted? That's the only way it could have been "stolen."

And the judicial nomination process has been a race to the bottom - at least as far as Republican nominees go - ever since an unprecedented smear campaign was launched against Robert Bork.
Obama was smart. Garland would have been MUCH harder for a Senate working properly, honorably and in a bipartisan manner to oppose.

MUCH harder than Gorsuch, clearly a hard right appointee.

So McConnell's only strategy was to shut him out completely. And he did it. He's selling us out to Trump and Putin. His wife is selling us out to China. And you folks are complicit, thanks to the Trump inerrancy doctrine.


Biden Rule, again.
And thank you Harry Reid for changing the Senate rules

riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FormerFlash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

Jinx 2 said:

curtpenn said:

Thanks so much for sharing. Linda is my all time favorite singer. If I could only listen to the works of one contemporary artist for the rest of my life, she'd be the one.
OK, there's one thing we agree on.

But Linda's a liberal. Dated Jerry Brown, hardly a conservative, seriously. Not a Trumpet. Disgusted by guys like him. And...she's female, smart, talented and independent. These deficits don't matter to you?
Nope. Bought all of her albums in the '70s-'80s (as well as Emmy Lou Harris') and then CDs of most of them, as well. Everything from country rock to big band standards plus pop, new wave, and Canciones (reminds me of growing up in San Antonio). Saw her in concert at SMU's McFarlin Auditorium in the late '70s. Breaks my heart Parkinson's has stilled her voice. FWIW, I'm very partial to smart, talented, and independent women such as my mother, my wife, and our daughter.
Without realizing it, in this exchange Jinx helped highlight the key difference between the left and the right at this moment in time. It's exactly the reason why political discourse has become impossible.

Jinx can't believe that as a conservative, Curt would be wiling to listen to Linda Ronstadt simply because she's a liberal. You can clearly see from these posts, in Curt's eyes Linda is a talented performer who's music he truly enjoys. His knowledge of her political leanings haven't deterred him from liking her music even though they differ from his own.

Liberals have become so deranged in their thinking that anyone with a differing political viewpoint should be shunned in all aspects of life. You can't appreciate art if it was created by someone who doesn't think like you do, even if you once liked the art before realizing their opinions differed. You can't buy a chicken sandwich from a company if their owner has a different belief than you. You can't laugh at a comedian if they once made fun of something you hold dear. This kind of thinking is ridiculous and it is a disease. We used to be able to disagree and still get along. The left has no interest in getting along anymore.
Kyle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Kyle said:

curtpenn said:

Jinx 2 said:

curtpenn said:

Jinx 2 said:

curtpenn said:

Thanks so much for sharing. Linda is my all time favorite singer. If I could only listen to the works of one contemporary artist for the rest of my life, she'd be the one.
OK, there's one thing we agree on.

But Linda's a liberal. Dated Jerry Brown, hardly a conservative, seriously. Not a Trumpet. Disgusted by guys like him. And...she's female, smart, talented and independent. These deficits don't matter to you?
Nope. Bought all of her albums in the '70s-'80s (as well as Emmy Lou Harris') and then CDs of most of them, as well. Everything from country rock to big band standards plus pop, new wave, and Canciones (reminds me of growing up in San Antonio). Saw her in concert at SMU's McFarlin Auditorium in the late '70s. Breaks my heart Parkinson's has stilled her voice. FWIW, I'm very partial to smart, talented, and independent women such as my mother, my wife, and our daughter.
Did they vote for Trump?

Do they buy into a political and religious ideology where women are second-class citizens who probably shouldn't have the vote because they're too emotional + pregnancy + menopause, and crass, crude and nasty behavior is acceptable as long as Trump did it?
Why, yes my wife and mother voted for Trump just as I did recognizing the clear existential threat to our republic posed by the fascists on the left as represented by Hillary. Don't think our daughter voted as she was not that interested in politics and was pretty occupied with her first child turning one near the election. I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp that one needn't care for some of the President's failings and yet approve of most of his platform. This isn't really that complicated.

Since you seem to be ok with slaughtering about a thousand baby girls every day in the US, why do you get so worked up about Trump?
Because progressives today can barely formulate a rational argument ... they rely on dishonest, hyperbolic emotion to enflame the masses and feed red meat to the Brownshirts.
I find this ironic coming from someone who is obviously intelligent, but buys the Trump/FoxNews/Brietbart/Limbaugh narrative hook, line and sinker and eats all the white meat they dish up.
What does that even mean? Is that just an ad hom for disagreeing with you? I think the examples of your refusing to let go of lies is well documented as well as your intentional misleading. The fact you constantly resort to ad hom pretty much demonstrates the lack of substance.

Would you applaud your son going to prison for life based on the evidence presented against Kavanagh? And don't distract with SCOTUS nomination vs. the judicial system. The question is simple: would you accept your son being convicted based on one, uncorroborated account from a clearly biased source?

To come to a decision, there is a simple framework you can use:
1. Is there reliable, concrete reasons to believe the witness? Given the internal and external inconsistencies as well as the way it was handled by the Feinstein office - clearly only one rogue staffer actually thought she was credible - the accusation is specious and corroborated by no one.
2. Is there reliable, concrete reasons to believe the witness may be lying? It is not unreasonable there was an agenda further supported by the way Ms. Ford has monetized her position into more than $1M. I think the WSJ my be on to something that this is simply an effort to de-legitimatize Kavanagh to ensure we continue to control the brown and black birth rates.

I'm not the only one who shares this position: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/13/ruth-bader-ginsburg-blasts-brett-kavanaugh-hearing/

I realize you will not agree with me because you have already labeled me as a means to dehumanize me and dismiss my perspective, but I am objective. Not only do I not want a criminal on the SCOTUS but also I have a mother, wife, and daughter, and I take sexual assault very seriously. I also have a son, and I believe accusing someone of a crime requires more than one, potentially biased account from 20 years ago that is both internally and externally inconsistent.

Similarly, Kavanaugh gets positive reviews from the same source above: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-praises-brett-kavanaugh-and-reflects-on-gender-equality-georgetown-2019-07-02/

Maybe you should examine your heart and ask why you seek to dehumanize people that disagree with and refuse to acknowledge diversity as well as if your desire to win has negatively impacted your compassion and humanity.

Kyle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FormerFlash said:

curtpenn said:

Jinx 2 said:

curtpenn said:

Thanks so much for sharing. Linda is my all time favorite singer. If I could only listen to the works of one contemporary artist for the rest of my life, she'd be the one.
OK, there's one thing we agree on.

But Linda's a liberal. Dated Jerry Brown, hardly a conservative, seriously. Not a Trumpet. Disgusted by guys like him. And...she's female, smart, talented and independent. These deficits don't matter to you?
Nope. Bought all of her albums in the '70s-'80s (as well as Emmy Lou Harris') and then CDs of most of them, as well. Everything from country rock to big band standards plus pop, new wave, and Canciones (reminds me of growing up in San Antonio). Saw her in concert at SMU's McFarlin Auditorium in the late '70s. Breaks my heart Parkinson's has stilled her voice. FWIW, I'm very partial to smart, talented, and independent women such as my mother, my wife, and our daughter.
Without realizing it, in this exchange Jinx helped highlight the key difference between the left and the right at this moment in time. It's exactly the reason why political discourse has become impossible.

Jinx can't believe that as a conservative, Curt would be wiling to listen to Linda Ronstadt simply because she's a liberal. You can clearly see from these posts, in Curt's eyes Linda is a talented performer who's music he truly enjoys. His knowledge of her political leanings haven't deterred him from liking her music even though they differ from his own.

Liberals have become so deranged in their thinking that anyone with a differing political viewpoint should be shunned in all aspects of life. You can't appreciate art if it was created by someone who doesn't think like you do, even if you once liked the art before realizing their opinions differed. You can't buy a chicken sandwich from a company if their owner has a different belief than you. You can't laugh at a comedian if they once made fun of something you hold dear. This kind of thinking is ridiculous and it is a disease. We used to be able to disagree and still get along. The left has no interest in getting along anymore.
Agree on both counts. Fundamentalism and intolerance of diversity reign in a spirit of idealogical purity and destruction of all that do not conform.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
During the Kavanaugh hearings it was reported that Ford's friend Leland Keyser basically believed her allegations even though she couldn't corroborate them. Now it turns out even that wasn't true. Plus Keyser was threatened for not backing the narrative. Ford has zero credibility at this point.
BearFan33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The win at all cost behavior demonstrated by the democrats since the Trump victory has me never wanting to consider them for any office ever again.
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearFan33 said:

The win at all cost behavior demonstrated by the democrats since the Trump victory has me never wanting to consider them for any office ever again.


^^^ Gets it!
Kyle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

During the Kavanaugh hearings it was reported that Ford's friend Leland Keyser basically believed her allegations even though she couldn't corroborate them. Now it turns out even that wasn't true. Plus Keyser was threatened for not backing the narrative. Ford has zero credibility at this point.
There is a reason Jinx posts Talking Points but cannot answer direct questions and bails on the thread. The pattern repeats. Difference between emotion and logic.
Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Ms. Ford has monetized her position into more than $1M.
Those GoFundMe pledges from Leftists are contingent on the lie working. I read that less than $8,000 of that $1M was actually honored and collected. Good thing for Dems that political contribution checks get cashed before the election.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OldBurlyBear86 said:

Jinx 2 said:

MoneyBear said:

Jinx 2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

How in the hell can these people even pretend that they support Democracy?


Trying to impeach Kavanaugh or otherwise unseat him is a bad idea, and it won't work. I'm not in favor of it, not because I like Brett Kavanaugh, but because he's seated already, however he was railroaded through by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary

But I had that same question when Mitch McConnell wouldn't even meet with Merrick Garland or consider his nomination. I think you and every other conservative posting on this board underestimate exactly how wrong, undemocratic and partisan that was.

I attended a lunch meeting yesterday of the Federalist society that featured a prominent conservative judge and a conservative legal scholar. The judge, a BYU graduate, decried the treatment of Kavanaugh. How could we go much lower? he asked.

The scholar mentioned what happened with Merrick Garland. He pointed out that Republicans AND Democrats had been engaged in a race to the bottom over judicial appointments for 2 decades--really, ever since David Suter disappointed conservatives. He agreed that the treatment of Kavanaugh was unjust, but he also said the way the Republicans treated Merrick Garland and dissed Obama was terrible--and that he thought the tit for tat over judicial appointments would continue until we hit rock bottom. His question was, whether this is rock bottom. I'm afraid it isn't.

We've been headed to rock bottom for a very long time. When judges became partisan weapons. It's true of both sides. Judges were intended to interpret the constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN not read their rulings into it. Just try finding a right abortion in the constitution, it's not there despite what so many people think. It's a perfect example of judicial overreach and that's why the justices matter so much to both sides. If it were truly the "law of the land" then there would be AN ACTUAL LAW that upheld it. The legislative branch has failed in its mission and that has cause/forced judges to legislate from the bench. It is wrong and was never the intent of our checks and balances system but because it is the case, the executive branch will attempt to stack the courts so that the legislation that comes from the bench will favor their party's platform.
We have the same disagreement about the reading of the constitution as we do about the bible. And even among conservatives, there's textualism versus originalism. A court that includes a mix of perspectives is more likely to be just. McConnell made it clear that balance is not his goal when he refused to talk with Garland.

btw, abortion isn't the only issue the court decides, and not, IMO, even the most important one. Cases addressing needed regulation to address climate change, however that might be, followed by protections of voting rights and free speech, ranks right up there.
I was at the discussion at the ATT Conference center, UT Campus, on Tuesday, and no such discussion took place. As a passive Federalist, I would love to get hold of that transcript. All I need is the location. I have scanned all pertinent meetings that took place on the 17th and cannot locate it.
The Federalist society meeting I attended wasn't in Texas.

There's no transcript, but I'm happy to send my notes next week via P.M. if you want them.

If your intent was to imply that I'm posting about a discussion that never happened, consider the fact that not all Baylor grads stayed in Texas. Just as there are a few of us who aren't Republicans.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kyle said:

Jinx 2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

Jinx 2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

Jinx shows an awful lot of hate to be judging Christians here.
Only the hypocrites.
Not so. You have great sympathy for progressive hypocrites, and also great bitterness at honest conservatives, Jinx.

And we are all of us hypocrites at one time or another. Sort of why Jesus warned Peter that he would deny him three times, before it happened.
Usually, I ignore you because I don't think you're rational. You accuse anyone who disagrees with you of lying.

I don't disrespect honest conservatives. I just haven't met many. And certainly none on this site.
You really are a model of low EQ. I mean, much of your worldview is past on lies:
1. Muslim ban
2. Anti-immigration
3. Russian hackers
4. Fake rape
5. White nationalist bogeymen
6. Fake Race Cards

I get you're uber-judgy, but I really wonder if your gall to judge "honesty" is genuine lack of EQ or just screwing with people a la Ruckus.
Let's be clear: I didn't bail on the discussion. I bailed on you, because you mischaracterize my views while stating views based on either the same evidence I'm considering or the right-wing narrative.

1. Several federal judges rejected Trump's first two versions of the travel ban, and one reason was that they appeared to target people of the Muslim faith/from Muslim countries. Only when Trump altered his ban and switched out some of the countries he'd originally included did SCOTUS give it the go-ahead and the final vote on it was 5/4. You present this as a clear right was right/left was wrong case when it's a lot more nuanced than that without mentioning that 2 versions of this ban were blocked by federal courts because they targeted people from Muslim countries.

2. Anti-immigration. = the Wall, "****hole countries" and "let's get more people from (white) countries and fewer from places where people need to leave because the government's corrupt or the country is a war zone." Not to mention ending our long-standing policy of allowing people fleeing persecution in other countries to request asylum--which I consider to be less "anti-immigrant" than just inhumane.

3. Russian hackers are ubiquitous. The question is whether they influenced the last election--they did--but how and how much. Here's Lindsey Graham (Brett Kavanaugh's biggest supporter, so someone whose observations you might pay attention to since he has the right credential for you: an "R" after his name - talking about Russian interference that continues: https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/441039-graham-says-russians-up-to-it-again-with-election-interference-we

4. Nobody said Blasey-Ford was raped. She said Kavanaugh assaulted her, and that she was afraid he was going to rape her. The assault she described involved trapping her in a bedroom, pinning her down on a bed and trying to take her clothes off. She says what bailed her out was that Mark Judge was so drunk he jumped on both of them, and they rolled off the bed, allowing her to escape. I understand that YOU think she is a liar, but you have the same basis for that opinion as I have for my belief that she's telling the truth and that Kavanaugh was too drunk to remember what he did. It's a he said/she said. You and most Republicans, including a federal judge I heard speak last week, believe Blasey Ford is a liar, and that Kavanaugh's melt-down was fully justified. I believe Blasey Ford came forward out of a civic duty, because she did not want to see a man she regarded as mean and a bully on SCOTUS, and that throwing a tantrum like that at what amounted to a job interview and treating Sen. Klobuchar the way he did should have given some of the Republicans on the committee pause about putting this guy on SCOTUS. We both looked at the same set of facts, opinions, and public events, and came to different conclusions. Why is it OK for you to do that, and not for me to do that (and end up in a different place)? This often happens, which is why we have 9 SCOTUS justice and several high-profile 5-4 decisions, as well as realizations, years later, and some of the 9-0 decisions were wrongly decided).

5. There's no question that Trump appeals to white nationalists and sometimes caters to them. David Duke endorsed him (whether Trump wanted the endorsement or not).

6. I voted for and respected Barack Obama, even when he made mistakes that frustrated me or made me mad (which all presidents do and most admit--with Trump being a big exception). I have had all the fun I can stand listening to guys like you imply that all of Trump's dog-whistles to white nationalists--which started before he was running for president, when he was a big supporter of the insulting birther movement, which implied that Obama's presidency wasn't legit--never happened, and that the incredible racist abuse and invective heaped on him, his wife and his children for more than 8 years never happened. You may be unaware of most of it because your news consumption is limited to Fox, Breitbart, Twitter and other right-wing news sources (although a few decent far right wingers, like the neocon Max Boot, acknowledge it). But it happened and it's still happening. It happens here on a weekly basis--there's either a racist post or a post where someone calls him Barack Hussain Obama and claims that he's a Muslim (as if THAT would make him unqualified for president). Not that religious bigotry is new--some people wouldn't vote for John Kennedy because he was Catholic and they thought his first loyalty would be to the Pope and not to the country.

NOW I'm tuning you out. You came on this forum acting like you wanted to ask questions and have a real discussion.

What you really want is an echo chamber and targets to aim invective at, like Obama, Blasey Ford, "the Libs," "the Dems," the "left," "the leftists and all those other names you have for those of us who haven't lined up behind Trump and today's GOP. Who include a fair number of former Republicans who don't want to be represented by a corrupt, dishonest sefl-aggrandizing businessman who doesn't want to release his tax returns because then everyone would know that he wasn't tremendously successful, and they'd get the dirty details on tactics like the one where he got his lawyers to use an "act of God" clause in a contract to claim he didn't have to repay a debt because of the economic downturn. Trump is crooked to the core, and his bootlickers are tainted by him.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

During the Kavanaugh hearings it was reported that Ford's friend Leland Keyser basically believed her allegations even though she couldn't corroborate them. Now it turns out even that wasn't true. Plus Keyser was threatened for not backing the narrative. Ford has zero credibility at this point.
This is why I don't engage with you most of the time: you present part of the truth in a way that makes it appear to be all of the truth.

Here's an article from the Washington Post that explains what really happened: Keyser originally believed Blasey Ford's allegations, telling investigators DURING the Kavanaugh hearing that she didn't remember the party in question, but that she believed Blasey Ford's allegations thought her attorney:

Excerpt: Keyser's attorney told investigators during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings that she couldn't recall the night in question, while adding that she believed Ford.

Later, in interviews with the New York Times reporters, she revealed that she no longer believes those allegations.

So when you say "it turns out even that wasn't true," you're wrong. But you get the same kind of validation from the ninnies on this site that you got back when you announced that you had seen the truth and decided to vote for Trump.

People change their minds (as you apparently did about Trump). Keyser did, for whatever reason. But there was no false reporting, and to use this to imply that the news media has engaged in a campaign of disinformation intended to discredit Brett Kavanaugh--the right-wing news narrative from the start--is wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/17/key-witness-brett-kavanaugh-saga-comes-down-his-side/

Here's an excerpt:

Some of Keyser's new quotes were first spotlighted in recent days by the Federalist, and the general thrust of Keyser's skepticism was reported in a July book by the same author, Mollie Hemingway, and Carrie Severino. The reporting in their book relied upon anonymous sources. But with the release of the book Tuesday, we have a fuller picture of what Keyser said in her first extensive public interview since Kavanaugh's confirmation.

Keyser described having many more reservations than she initially let on. She said she tried to assemble the details as described by Ford, but she called her attorney and told him, "You know what, I don't feel good about something."

Ford said in her testimony that she left after the alleged assault but wasn't sure how she got home, other than that she didn't drive home. Ford also said there were at least four boys at the party three that she was able to name along with Keyser, but that there could have been more.

"It would be impossible for me to be the only girl at a get-together with three guys, have her leave and then not figure out how she's going to get home," Keyser said.

"I've been thinking about who I was at 16 rather than who Chrissy was at 16," Keyser said, saying that although she has dealt with addiction as an adult, she wasn't a heavy drinker then. She added, "That's when I changed."

Ford, in her Senate testimony, said Keyser "was downstairs during the event and I did not share it with her." She also said then of Keyser's lack of corroboration, "I don't expect that Leland would remember this evening."
Keyser said she doesn't remember many small gatherings like the one Ford described, nor does she remember hanging out much with Georgetown Prep students, which Kavanaugh was. She maintains that she didn't even know who Kavanaugh was back then, after reviewing pictures and maps.

"Those facts together I don't recollect, and it just doesn't make any sense," Keyser said. Keyser also said she spoke with many people who "wanted me to remember something different" suggesting that there was pressure on her to toe the line and that she told the FBI about that. Some of Keyser's more interesting comments, though, are about Ford and Kavanaugh as people.

Of her friend, she alludes to some kind of "trauma" Ford may have experienced, even as the details of this particular allegation don't add up to her.

"I think something happened, but I don't know what," Keyser said. "And I haven't been close enough to her over the years to know that something went down. I haven't seen her in a long, long time. I do think that something happened to her, and that maybe she is a victim of some sort of trauma."
Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Man, how long does it take to answer a "delete my account" request? Is there a backlog or something?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

During the Kavanaugh hearings it was reported that Ford's friend Leland Keyser basically believed her allegations even though she couldn't corroborate them. Now it turns out even that wasn't true. Plus Keyser was threatened for not backing the narrative. Ford has zero credibility at this point.
This is why I don't engage with you most of the time: you present part of the truth in a way that makes it appear to be all of the truth.

Here's an article from the Washington Post that explains what really happened: Keyser originally believed Blasey Ford's allegations, telling investigators DURING the Kavanaugh hearing that she didn't remember the party in question, but that she believed Blasey Ford's allegations thought her attorney:

Excerpt: Keyser's attorney told investigators during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings that she couldn't recall the night in question, while adding that she believed Ford.

Later, in interviews with the New York Times reporters, she revealed that she no longer believes those allegations.

So when you say "it turns out even that wasn't true," you're wrong. But you get the same kind of validation from the ninnies on this site that you got back when you announced that you had seen the truth and decided to vote for Trump.

People change their minds (as you apparently did about Trump). Keyser did, for whatever reason. But there was no false reporting, and to use this to imply that the news media has engaged in a campaign of disinformation intended to discredit Brett Kavanaugh--the right-wing news narrative from the start--is wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/17/key-witness-brett-kavanaugh-saga-comes-down-his-side/

Here's an excerpt:

Some of Keyser's new quotes were first spotlighted in recent days by the Federalist, and the general thrust of Keyser's skepticism was reported in a July book by the same author, Mollie Hemingway, and Carrie Severino. The reporting in their book relied upon anonymous sources. But with the release of the book Tuesday, we have a fuller picture of what Keyser said in her first extensive public interview since Kavanaugh's confirmation.

Keyser described having many more reservations than she initially let on. She said she tried to assemble the details as described by Ford, but she called her attorney and told him, "You know what, I don't feel good about something."

Ford said in her testimony that she left after the alleged assault but wasn't sure how she got home, other than that she didn't drive home. Ford also said there were at least four boys at the party three that she was able to name along with Keyser, but that there could have been more.

"It would be impossible for me to be the only girl at a get-together with three guys, have her leave and then not figure out how she's going to get home," Keyser said.

"I've been thinking about who I was at 16 rather than who Chrissy was at 16," Keyser said, saying that although she has dealt with addiction as an adult, she wasn't a heavy drinker then. She added, "That's when I changed."

Ford, in her Senate testimony, said Keyser "was downstairs during the event and I did not share it with her." She also said then of Keyser's lack of corroboration, "I don't expect that Leland would remember this evening."
Keyser said she doesn't remember many small gatherings like the one Ford described, nor does she remember hanging out much with Georgetown Prep students, which Kavanaugh was. She maintains that she didn't even know who Kavanaugh was back then, after reviewing pictures and maps.

"Those facts together I don't recollect, and it just doesn't make any sense," Keyser said. Keyser also said she spoke with many people who "wanted me to remember something different" suggesting that there was pressure on her to toe the line and that she told the FBI about that. Some of Keyser's more interesting comments, though, are about Ford and Kavanaugh as people.

Of her friend, she alludes to some kind of "trauma" Ford may have experienced, even as the details of this particular allegation don't add up to her.

"I think something happened, but I don't know what," Keyser said. "And I haven't been close enough to her over the years to know that something went down. I haven't seen her in a long, long time. I do think that something happened to her, and that maybe she is a victim of some sort of trauma."
I didn't know Keyser changed her mind. You could have just said so.

The fact remains that Ford now has zero support from anyone in a position to know what happened, while her friend has rebutted some specific aspects of her story and questioned the integrity of those around Ford who were promoting it. At this point she'd have a long way to go to even meet the "he said, she said" standard of credibility.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Jinx 2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

During the Kavanaugh hearings it was reported that Ford's friend Leland Keyser basically believed her allegations even though she couldn't corroborate them. Now it turns out even that wasn't true. Plus Keyser was threatened for not backing the narrative. Ford has zero credibility at this point.
This is why I don't engage with you most of the time: you present part of the truth in a way that makes it appear to be all of the truth.

Here's an article from the Washington Post that explains what really happened: Keyser originally believed Blasey Ford's allegations, telling investigators DURING the Kavanaugh hearing that she didn't remember the party in question, but that she believed Blasey Ford's allegations thought her attorney:

Excerpt: Keyser's attorney told investigators during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings that she couldn't recall the night in question, while adding that she believed Ford.

Later, in interviews with the New York Times reporters, she revealed that she no longer believes those allegations.

So when you say "it turns out even that wasn't true," you're wrong. But you get the same kind of validation from the ninnies on this site that you got back when you announced that you had seen the truth and decided to vote for Trump.

People change their minds (as you apparently did about Trump). Keyser did, for whatever reason. But there was no false reporting, and to use this to imply that the news media has engaged in a campaign of disinformation intended to discredit Brett Kavanaugh--the right-wing news narrative from the start--is wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/17/key-witness-brett-kavanaugh-saga-comes-down-his-side/

Here's an excerpt:

Some of Keyser's new quotes were first spotlighted in recent days by the Federalist, and the general thrust of Keyser's skepticism was reported in a July book by the same author, Mollie Hemingway, and Carrie Severino. The reporting in their book relied upon anonymous sources. But with the release of the book Tuesday, we have a fuller picture of what Keyser said in her first extensive public interview since Kavanaugh's confirmation.

Keyser described having many more reservations than she initially let on. She said she tried to assemble the details as described by Ford, but she called her attorney and told him, "You know what, I don't feel good about something."

Ford said in her testimony that she left after the alleged assault but wasn't sure how she got home, other than that she didn't drive home. Ford also said there were at least four boys at the party three that she was able to name along with Keyser, but that there could have been more.

"It would be impossible for me to be the only girl at a get-together with three guys, have her leave and then not figure out how she's going to get home," Keyser said.

"I've been thinking about who I was at 16 rather than who Chrissy was at 16," Keyser said, saying that although she has dealt with addiction as an adult, she wasn't a heavy drinker then. She added, "That's when I changed."

Ford, in her Senate testimony, said Keyser "was downstairs during the event and I did not share it with her." She also said then of Keyser's lack of corroboration, "I don't expect that Leland would remember this evening."
Keyser said she doesn't remember many small gatherings like the one Ford described, nor does she remember hanging out much with Georgetown Prep students, which Kavanaugh was. She maintains that she didn't even know who Kavanaugh was back then, after reviewing pictures and maps.

"Those facts together I don't recollect, and it just doesn't make any sense," Keyser said. Keyser also said she spoke with many people who "wanted me to remember something different" suggesting that there was pressure on her to toe the line and that she told the FBI about that. Some of Keyser's more interesting comments, though, are about Ford and Kavanaugh as people.

Of her friend, she alludes to some kind of "trauma" Ford may have experienced, even as the details of this particular allegation don't add up to her.

"I think something happened, but I don't know what," Keyser said. "And I haven't been close enough to her over the years to know that something went down. I haven't seen her in a long, long time. I do think that something happened to her, and that maybe she is a victim of some sort of trauma."
I didn't know Keyser changed her mind. You could have just said so.

The fact remains that Ford now has zero support from anyone in a position to know what happened, while her friend has rebutted some specific aspects of her story and questioned the integrity of those around Ford who were promoting it. At this point she'd have a long way to go to even meet the "he said, she said" standard of credibility.
But you did it again.

"Her friend rebutted certain aspects of her story" is inaccurate. Leland Keyser said she did not remember the party in question or hanging out much with students from Kavanaugh's school. She didn't remember Kavanaugh. She also expressed doubt about whether Blasey-Ford's story was true, but that is not the same as "rebutting" any facts--that's just her opinion--the same opinion many of you have formed. "Not remembering" is not a rebuttal. Blasey Ford had stated that Keyser was downstairs, that she had never told Keyser what had happened, and that it was unlikely Keyser would remember anything about it.

If somebody tried to pressure her to remember something she didn't remember, that was clearly wrong. But it looks like that Keyser may have been pressured by people on both sides of this sordid story.

One point that the two female reporters who investigated this story--the women so vilified on this forum for their reporting--made is that the gaps in Blasey Ford's memories are consistent with those of people recalling traumatic events from the past. They may have no recollection of some details combined with a very vivid memory of certain aspects of the assault.

Many people posting here also think investigating this event isn't valid. It certainly wouldn't have been tolerated in the 1990s when Clarence Thomas got onto the Supreme Court despite more credible allegations from Anita Hill. Kavanaugh's nomination came on the heels of the "Me, Too" movement, and she got the same treatment as Anita Hill from the all-male, all-white GOP Senate Judiciary committee members. It doesn't surprise me they investigated or that they believed her allegations. Nor does the backlash and the faulting of the New York Times for the way they reported it. All of that's predictable, but the bottom line is, we've got another jerk who got on the court by having a high-profile tantrum that would been totally disqualifying had the person who behaved like that been a women and the senator so disrespected with a snarled, "Do you like beer, senator?" been a man (and one whose father had been an alcoholic).
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Jinx 2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

During the Kavanaugh hearings it was reported that Ford's friend Leland Keyser basically believed her allegations even though she couldn't corroborate them. Now it turns out even that wasn't true. Plus Keyser was threatened for not backing the narrative. Ford has zero credibility at this point.
This is why I don't engage with you most of the time: you present part of the truth in a way that makes it appear to be all of the truth.

Here's an article from the Washington Post that explains what really happened: Keyser originally believed Blasey Ford's allegations, telling investigators DURING the Kavanaugh hearing that she didn't remember the party in question, but that she believed Blasey Ford's allegations thought her attorney:

Excerpt: Keyser's attorney told investigators during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings that she couldn't recall the night in question, while adding that she believed Ford.

Later, in interviews with the New York Times reporters, she revealed that she no longer believes those allegations.

So when you say "it turns out even that wasn't true," you're wrong. But you get the same kind of validation from the ninnies on this site that you got back when you announced that you had seen the truth and decided to vote for Trump.

People change their minds (as you apparently did about Trump). Keyser did, for whatever reason. But there was no false reporting, and to use this to imply that the news media has engaged in a campaign of disinformation intended to discredit Brett Kavanaugh--the right-wing news narrative from the start--is wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/17/key-witness-brett-kavanaugh-saga-comes-down-his-side/

Here's an excerpt:

Some of Keyser's new quotes were first spotlighted in recent days by the Federalist, and the general thrust of Keyser's skepticism was reported in a July book by the same author, Mollie Hemingway, and Carrie Severino. The reporting in their book relied upon anonymous sources. But with the release of the book Tuesday, we have a fuller picture of what Keyser said in her first extensive public interview since Kavanaugh's confirmation.

Keyser described having many more reservations than she initially let on. She said she tried to assemble the details as described by Ford, but she called her attorney and told him, "You know what, I don't feel good about something."

Ford said in her testimony that she left after the alleged assault but wasn't sure how she got home, other than that she didn't drive home. Ford also said there were at least four boys at the party three that she was able to name along with Keyser, but that there could have been more.

"It would be impossible for me to be the only girl at a get-together with three guys, have her leave and then not figure out how she's going to get home," Keyser said.

"I've been thinking about who I was at 16 rather than who Chrissy was at 16," Keyser said, saying that although she has dealt with addiction as an adult, she wasn't a heavy drinker then. She added, "That's when I changed."

Ford, in her Senate testimony, said Keyser "was downstairs during the event and I did not share it with her." She also said then of Keyser's lack of corroboration, "I don't expect that Leland would remember this evening."
Keyser said she doesn't remember many small gatherings like the one Ford described, nor does she remember hanging out much with Georgetown Prep students, which Kavanaugh was. She maintains that she didn't even know who Kavanaugh was back then, after reviewing pictures and maps.

"Those facts together I don't recollect, and it just doesn't make any sense," Keyser said. Keyser also said she spoke with many people who "wanted me to remember something different" suggesting that there was pressure on her to toe the line and that she told the FBI about that. Some of Keyser's more interesting comments, though, are about Ford and Kavanaugh as people.

Of her friend, she alludes to some kind of "trauma" Ford may have experienced, even as the details of this particular allegation don't add up to her.

"I think something happened, but I don't know what," Keyser said. "And I haven't been close enough to her over the years to know that something went down. I haven't seen her in a long, long time. I do think that something happened to her, and that maybe she is a victim of some sort of trauma."
I didn't know Keyser changed her mind. You could have just said so.

The fact remains that Ford now has zero support from anyone in a position to know what happened, while her friend has rebutted some specific aspects of her story and questioned the integrity of those around Ford who were promoting it. At this point she'd have a long way to go to even meet the "he said, she said" standard of credibility.
But you did it again.

"Her friend rebutted certain aspects of her story" is inaccurate. Leland Keyser said she did not remember the party in question or hanging out much with students from Kavanaugh's school. She didn't remember Kavanaugh. She also expressed doubt about whether Blasey-Ford's story was true, but that is not the same as "rebutting" any facts--that's just her opinion--the same opinion many of you have formed. "Not remembering" is not a rebuttal. Blasey Ford had stated that Keyser was downstairs, that she had never told Keyser what had happened, and that it was unlikely Keyser would remember anything about it.

If somebody tried to pressure her to remember something she didn't remember, that was clearly wrong. But it looks like that Keyser may have been pressured by people on both sides of this sordid story.

One point that the two female reporters who investigated this story--the women so vilified on this forum for their reporting--made is that the gaps in Blasey Ford's memories are consistent with those of people recalling traumatic events from the past. They may have no recollection of some details combined with a very vivid memory of certain aspects of the assault.

Many people posting here also think investigating this event isn't valid. It certainly wouldn't have been tolerated in the 1990s when Clarence Thomas got onto the Supreme Court despite more credible allegations from Anita Hill. Kavanaugh's nomination came on the heels of the "Me, Too" movement, and she got the same treatment as Anita Hill from the all-male, all-white GOP Senate Judiciary committee members. It doesn't surprise me they investigated or that they believed her allegations. Nor does the backlash and the faulting of the New York Times for the way they reported it. All of that's predictable, but the bottom line is, we've got another jerk who got on the court by having a high-profile tantrum that would been totally disqualifying had the person who behaved like that been a women and the senator so disrespected with a snarled, "Do you like beer, senator?" been a man (and one whose father had been an alcoholic).
To rebut doesn't necessarily mean to conclusively disprove. Keyser has rebutted several aspects of Ford's story in the sense that she's opposed them with countervailing evidence. According to Keyser, the parties they attended in high school weren't like the one Ford described. After reviewing pictures, she's stated that she didn't know Kavanaugh - not just that she didn't remember him. And she claims it would have been impossible for Ford to leave under those circumstances without Keyser figuring out how she'd get home. These are relevant, specific rebuttals to Ford's assertions.

The fact that traumatized women can have memory gaps is only evidence that Ford could have been telling the truth. It's in no way evidence that she was.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ford is a nut. It is obvious from her testimony that she is a nut. Call her a nut and move on.

Nut.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GrowlTowel said:

Ford is a nut. It is obvious from her testimony that she is a nut. Call her a nut and move on.

Nut.
Kavanaugh is a jerk. It is obviously from his testimony at the Senate hearing that he is a jerk and a mean drunk. Call him a jerk and find someone who's not to sit on SCOTUS.

GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

GrowlTowel said:

Ford is a nut. It is obvious from her testimony that she is a nut. Call her a nut and move on.

Nut.
Kavanaugh is a jerk. It is obviously from his testimony at the Senate hearing that he is a jerk and a mean drunk. Call him a jerk and find someone who's not to sit on SCOTUS.




No, you call him your Honor.

Dam it feels good to be a gangster.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

GrowlTowel said:

Ford is a nut. It is obvious from her testimony that she is a nut. Call her a nut and move on.

Nut.
Kavanaugh is a jerk. It is obviously from his testimony at the Senate hearing that he is a jerk and a mean drunk. Call him a jerk and find someone who's not to sit on SCOTUS.




It's scary we live amongst people with judgements like you

You seem to be a potential serial killer?
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Jinx 2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Jinx 2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

During the Kavanaugh hearings it was reported that Ford's friend Leland Keyser basically believed her allegations even though she couldn't corroborate them. Now it turns out even that wasn't true. Plus Keyser was threatened for not backing the narrative. Ford has zero credibility at this point.
This is why I don't engage with you most of the time: you present part of the truth in a way that makes it appear to be all of the truth.

Here's an article from the Washington Post that explains what really happened: Keyser originally believed Blasey Ford's allegations, telling investigators DURING the Kavanaugh hearing that she didn't remember the party in question, but that she believed Blasey Ford's allegations thought her attorney:

Excerpt: Keyser's attorney told investigators during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings that she couldn't recall the night in question, while adding that she believed Ford.

Later, in interviews with the New York Times reporters, she revealed that she no longer believes those allegations.

So when you say "it turns out even that wasn't true," you're wrong. But you get the same kind of validation from the ninnies on this site that you got back when you announced that you had seen the truth and decided to vote for Trump.

People change their minds (as you apparently did about Trump). Keyser did, for whatever reason. But there was no false reporting, and to use this to imply that the news media has engaged in a campaign of disinformation intended to discredit Brett Kavanaugh--the right-wing news narrative from the start--is wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/17/key-witness-brett-kavanaugh-saga-comes-down-his-side/

Here's an excerpt:

Some of Keyser's new quotes were first spotlighted in recent days by the Federalist, and the general thrust of Keyser's skepticism was reported in a July book by the same author, Mollie Hemingway, and Carrie Severino. The reporting in their book relied upon anonymous sources. But with the release of the book Tuesday, we have a fuller picture of what Keyser said in her first extensive public interview since Kavanaugh's confirmation.

Keyser described having many more reservations than she initially let on. She said she tried to assemble the details as described by Ford, but she called her attorney and told him, "You know what, I don't feel good about something."

Ford said in her testimony that she left after the alleged assault but wasn't sure how she got home, other than that she didn't drive home. Ford also said there were at least four boys at the party three that she was able to name along with Keyser, but that there could have been more.

"It would be impossible for me to be the only girl at a get-together with three guys, have her leave and then not figure out how she's going to get home," Keyser said.

"I've been thinking about who I was at 16 rather than who Chrissy was at 16," Keyser said, saying that although she has dealt with addiction as an adult, she wasn't a heavy drinker then. She added, "That's when I changed."

Ford, in her Senate testimony, said Keyser "was downstairs during the event and I did not share it with her." She also said then of Keyser's lack of corroboration, "I don't expect that Leland would remember this evening."
Keyser said she doesn't remember many small gatherings like the one Ford described, nor does she remember hanging out much with Georgetown Prep students, which Kavanaugh was. She maintains that she didn't even know who Kavanaugh was back then, after reviewing pictures and maps.

"Those facts together I don't recollect, and it just doesn't make any sense," Keyser said. Keyser also said she spoke with many people who "wanted me to remember something different" suggesting that there was pressure on her to toe the line and that she told the FBI about that. Some of Keyser's more interesting comments, though, are about Ford and Kavanaugh as people.

Of her friend, she alludes to some kind of "trauma" Ford may have experienced, even as the details of this particular allegation don't add up to her.

"I think something happened, but I don't know what," Keyser said. "And I haven't been close enough to her over the years to know that something went down. I haven't seen her in a long, long time. I do think that something happened to her, and that maybe she is a victim of some sort of trauma."
I didn't know Keyser changed her mind. You could have just said so.

The fact remains that Ford now has zero support from anyone in a position to know what happened, while her friend has rebutted some specific aspects of her story and questioned the integrity of those around Ford who were promoting it. At this point she'd have a long way to go to even meet the "he said, she said" standard of credibility.
But you did it again.

"Her friend rebutted certain aspects of her story" is inaccurate. Leland Keyser said she did not remember the party in question or hanging out much with students from Kavanaugh's school. She didn't remember Kavanaugh. She also expressed doubt about whether Blasey-Ford's story was true, but that is not the same as "rebutting" any facts--that's just her opinion--the same opinion many of you have formed. "Not remembering" is not a rebuttal. Blasey Ford had stated that Keyser was downstairs, that she had never told Keyser what had happened, and that it was unlikely Keyser would remember anything about it.

If somebody tried to pressure her to remember something she didn't remember, that was clearly wrong. But it looks like that Keyser may have been pressured by people on both sides of this sordid story.

One point that the two female reporters who investigated this story--the women so vilified on this forum for their reporting--made is that the gaps in Blasey Ford's memories are consistent with those of people recalling traumatic events from the past. They may have no recollection of some details combined with a very vivid memory of certain aspects of the assault.

Many people posting here also think investigating this event isn't valid. It certainly wouldn't have been tolerated in the 1990s when Clarence Thomas got onto the Supreme Court despite more credible allegations from Anita Hill. Kavanaugh's nomination came on the heels of the "Me, Too" movement, and she got the same treatment as Anita Hill from the all-male, all-white GOP Senate Judiciary committee members. It doesn't surprise me they investigated or that they believed her allegations. Nor does the backlash and the faulting of the New York Times for the way they reported it. All of that's predictable, but the bottom line is, we've got another jerk who got on the court by having a high-profile tantrum that would been totally disqualifying had the person who behaved like that been a women and the senator so disrespected with a snarled, "Do you like beer, senator?" been a man (and one whose father had been an alcoholic).
To rebut doesn't necessarily mean to conclusively disprove. Keyser has rebutted several aspects of Ford's story in the sense that she's opposed them with countervailing evidence. According to Keyser, the parties they attended in high school weren't like the one Ford described. After reviewing pictures, she's stated that she didn't know Kavanaugh - not just that she didn't remember him. And she claims it would have been impossible for Ford to leave under those circumstances without Keyser figuring out how she'd get home. These are relevant, specific rebuttals to Ford's assertions.

The fact that traumatized women can have memory gaps is only evidence that Ford could have been telling the truth. It's in no way evidence that she was.
Keyser's memories are no better evidence than Blasey Ford's memories. Ford herself stated, at the time, that she did not expect Keyser to have any memory of the incident.

To say she "rebutted several aspects of Ford's story" is simply incorrect. SHE may not remember hanging out with boys from Georgetown Prep, but plenty of other women from Blasey-Ford's school did. And she may not remember Kavanaugh, but others did. Keyser didn't originally testify because she has an addition disorder; she had a lawyer speak for her. I understand that people choose the witnesses they believe are most credible in a criminal case, but (1) this isn't a criminal case and (2) Blasey-Ford appears more credible to me than Keyser. You've chosen her version because you like it better.

Finally, Blasey-Ford had no intention of trying to get charges brought against Kavanaugh. Her testimony--and those of others whose characters Republicans have sought to assassinate while decrying the attacks on Kavanaugh as character-assassination--was simply intended to reflect on Kavanuagh's character.

We have 9 SCOTUS judges. Their character should be above reproach. The only other justice where such character issues have been raised is Clarence Thomas. Most people now believe those allegations are true. I understand why women and Democrats who watched Anita Hill be called "a little bit nutty and a little bit ****ty" did not want to see that pattern repeat itself. But it has, only Blasey Ford has been characterized as a lot nutty, because she is a liberal psychology professor who teaches at Stanford.
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Jinx 2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Jinx 2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

During the Kavanaugh hearings it was reported that Ford's friend Leland Keyser basically believed her allegations even though she couldn't corroborate them. Now it turns out even that wasn't true. Plus Keyser was threatened for not backing the narrative. Ford has zero credibility at this point.
This is why I don't engage with you most of the time: you present part of the truth in a way that makes it appear to be all of the truth.

Here's an article from the Washington Post that explains what really happened: Keyser originally believed Blasey Ford's allegations, telling investigators DURING the Kavanaugh hearing that she didn't remember the party in question, but that she believed Blasey Ford's allegations thought her attorney:

Excerpt: Keyser's attorney told investigators during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings that she couldn't recall the night in question, while adding that she believed Ford.

Later, in interviews with the New York Times reporters, she revealed that she no longer believes those allegations.

So when you say "it turns out even that wasn't true," you're wrong. But you get the same kind of validation from the ninnies on this site that you got back when you announced that you had seen the truth and decided to vote for Trump.

People change their minds (as you apparently did about Trump). Keyser did, for whatever reason. But there was no false reporting, and to use this to imply that the news media has engaged in a campaign of disinformation intended to discredit Brett Kavanaugh--the right-wing news narrative from the start--is wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/17/key-witness-brett-kavanaugh-saga-comes-down-his-side/

Here's an excerpt:

Some of Keyser's new quotes were first spotlighted in recent days by the Federalist, and the general thrust of Keyser's skepticism was reported in a July book by the same author, Mollie Hemingway, and Carrie Severino. The reporting in their book relied upon anonymous sources. But with the release of the book Tuesday, we have a fuller picture of what Keyser said in her first extensive public interview since Kavanaugh's confirmation.

Keyser described having many more reservations than she initially let on. She said she tried to assemble the details as described by Ford, but she called her attorney and told him, "You know what, I don't feel good about something."

Ford said in her testimony that she left after the alleged assault but wasn't sure how she got home, other than that she didn't drive home. Ford also said there were at least four boys at the party three that she was able to name along with Keyser, but that there could have been more.

"It would be impossible for me to be the only girl at a get-together with three guys, have her leave and then not figure out how she's going to get home," Keyser said.

"I've been thinking about who I was at 16 rather than who Chrissy was at 16," Keyser said, saying that although she has dealt with addiction as an adult, she wasn't a heavy drinker then. She added, "That's when I changed."

Ford, in her Senate testimony, said Keyser "was downstairs during the event and I did not share it with her." She also said then of Keyser's lack of corroboration, "I don't expect that Leland would remember this evening."
Keyser said she doesn't remember many small gatherings like the one Ford described, nor does she remember hanging out much with Georgetown Prep students, which Kavanaugh was. She maintains that she didn't even know who Kavanaugh was back then, after reviewing pictures and maps.

"Those facts together I don't recollect, and it just doesn't make any sense," Keyser said. Keyser also said she spoke with many people who "wanted me to remember something different" suggesting that there was pressure on her to toe the line and that she told the FBI about that. Some of Keyser's more interesting comments, though, are about Ford and Kavanaugh as people.

Of her friend, she alludes to some kind of "trauma" Ford may have experienced, even as the details of this particular allegation don't add up to her.

"I think something happened, but I don't know what," Keyser said. "And I haven't been close enough to her over the years to know that something went down. I haven't seen her in a long, long time. I do think that something happened to her, and that maybe she is a victim of some sort of trauma."
I didn't know Keyser changed her mind. You could have just said so.

The fact remains that Ford now has zero support from anyone in a position to know what happened, while her friend has rebutted some specific aspects of her story and questioned the integrity of those around Ford who were promoting it. At this point she'd have a long way to go to even meet the "he said, she said" standard of credibility.
But you did it again.

"Her friend rebutted certain aspects of her story" is inaccurate. Leland Keyser said she did not remember the party in question or hanging out much with students from Kavanaugh's school. She didn't remember Kavanaugh. She also expressed doubt about whether Blasey-Ford's story was true, but that is not the same as "rebutting" any facts--that's just her opinion--the same opinion many of you have formed. "Not remembering" is not a rebuttal. Blasey Ford had stated that Keyser was downstairs, that she had never told Keyser what had happened, and that it was unlikely Keyser would remember anything about it.

If somebody tried to pressure her to remember something she didn't remember, that was clearly wrong. But it looks like that Keyser may have been pressured by people on both sides of this sordid story.

One point that the two female reporters who investigated this story--the women so vilified on this forum for their reporting--made is that the gaps in Blasey Ford's memories are consistent with those of people recalling traumatic events from the past. They may have no recollection of some details combined with a very vivid memory of certain aspects of the assault.

Many people posting here also think investigating this event isn't valid. It certainly wouldn't have been tolerated in the 1990s when Clarence Thomas got onto the Supreme Court despite more credible allegations from Anita Hill. Kavanaugh's nomination came on the heels of the "Me, Too" movement, and she got the same treatment as Anita Hill from the all-male, all-white GOP Senate Judiciary committee members. It doesn't surprise me they investigated or that they believed her allegations. Nor does the backlash and the faulting of the New York Times for the way they reported it. All of that's predictable, but the bottom line is, we've got another jerk who got on the court by having a high-profile tantrum that would been totally disqualifying had the person who behaved like that been a women and the senator so disrespected with a snarled, "Do you like beer, senator?" been a man (and one whose father had been an alcoholic).
To rebut doesn't necessarily mean to conclusively disprove. Keyser has rebutted several aspects of Ford's story in the sense that she's opposed them with countervailing evidence. According to Keyser, the parties they attended in high school weren't like the one Ford described. After reviewing pictures, she's stated that she didn't know Kavanaugh - not just that she didn't remember him. And she claims it would have been impossible for Ford to leave under those circumstances without Keyser figuring out how she'd get home. These are relevant, specific rebuttals to Ford's assertions.

The fact that traumatized women can have memory gaps is only evidence that Ford could have been telling the truth. It's in no way evidence that she was.
Keyser's memories are no better evidence than Blasey Ford's memories. Ford herself stated, at the time, that she did not expect Keyser to have any memory of the incident.

To say she "rebutted several aspects of Ford's story" is simply incorrect. SHE may not remember hanging out with boys from Georgetown Prep, but plenty of other women from Blasey-Ford's school did. And she may not remember Kavanaugh, but others did. Keyser didn't originally testify because she has an addition disorder; she had a lawyer speak for her. I understand that people choose the witnesses they believe are most credible in a criminal case, but (1) this isn't a criminal case and (2) Blasey-Ford appears more credible to me than Keyser. You've chosen her version because you like it better.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/rebut

Rebut: to argue that a statement or claim is not true.

Seems to meet the definition of "rebut" to me.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GrowlTowel said:

Jinx 2 said:

GrowlTowel said:

Ford is a nut. It is obvious from her testimony that she is a nut. Call her a nut and move on.

Nut.
Kavanaugh is a jerk. It is obviously from his testimony at the Senate hearing that he is a jerk and a mean drunk. Call him a jerk and find someone who's not to sit on SCOTUS.




No, you call him your Honor.

Dam it feels good to be a gangster.
Never have bought into "the honorable" because too many judges really aren't. Now we have 2 of those on SCOTUS. Damn it feels bad to live in a country where people don't care if the justice system works as long as the verdicts reflect their political views.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.