90sBear said:

---

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.

---

Your implication was/is that Keyser's testimony is more valid or truthful or worthy of considering than Blasey Ford's. It wasn't. And it changed.

Oh Lordy, if Blasey Ford's testimony had changed, you fellas would be all over that because you'd say the inconsistency proves either that she's lying or that her memories are totally inaccurate. But you're prepared to accept Keyser's changing her mind as the gospel truth as long as what she says supports Kavauagh.

Kavanaugh's in there, and for the record, I think Democrats would be stupid to try to impeach him. But the GOP has fouled both the SCOTUS selection process by not even considering Obama's nominee, a final act of 8 years of disrespect and obstructive that I view as unforgivable (McConnell's the guy who should be impeached) and SCOTUS itself by appointing not one, but 2 guys who have behaved like jerks with women.

Jinx 2 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

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.

---

Your implication was/is that Keyser's testimony is more valid or truthful or worthy of considering than Blasey Ford's. It wasn't. And it changed.

Oh Lordy, if Blasey Ford's testimony had changed, you fellas would be all over that because you'd say the inconsistency proves either that she's lying or that her memories are totally inaccurate. But you're prepared to accept Keyser's changing her mind as the gospel truth as long as what she says supports Kavauagh.

Kavanaugh's in there, and for the record, I think Democrats would be stupid to try to impeach him. But the GOP has fouled both the SCOTUS selection process by not even considering Obama's nominee, a final act of 8 years of disrespect and obstructive that I view as unforgivable (McConnell's the guy who should be impeached) and SCOTUS itself by appointing not one, but 2 guys who have behaved like jerks with women.

---

No, my implication is that Keyser's statement meets the definition of the word "rebut".

Witness A: "X happened and Witness B was there with me when it happened."

Witness B: "I don't ever remember X happening or being anywhere with Witness A at an event like they described."

A jury could believe either witness they choose to believe. A rebuttal isn't necessarily definitive proof. This is a he said/she said situation so the only evidence that can be offered is eyewitness memory. Therefore one person's memory can be offered as a rebuttal to another person's memory.

Anyone can choose to believe or not believe a rebuttal statement.

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 not obvious. You believe all of that because she said so with zero...and I mean zero evidence and no one backing her story. That's just how crazy you hate Trump.

Jinx 2 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

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.

---

Your implication was/is that Keyser's testimony is more valid or truthful or worthy of considering than Blasey Ford's. It wasn't. And it changed.

Oh Lordy, if Blasey Ford's testimony had changed, you fellas would be all over that because you'd say the inconsistency proves either that she's lying or that her memories are totally inaccurate. But you're prepared to accept Keyser's changing her mind as the gospel truth as long as what she says supports Kavauagh.

Kavanaugh's in there, and for the record, I think Democrats would be stupid to try to impeach him. But the GOP has fouled both the SCOTUS selection process by not even considering Obama's nominee, a final act of 8 years of disrespect and obstructive that I view as unforgivable (McConnell's the guy who should be impeached) and SCOTUS itself by appointing not one, but 2 guys who have behaved like jerks with women.

---

I'm not really sure how Ford's testimony could change. She gave no facts regarding where, when, who or anything else, so it would almost be impossible for her story to change.

fadskier 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.

---

It's not obvious. You believe all of that because she said so with zero...and I mean zero evidence and no one backing her story. That's just how crazy you hate Trump.

---

If you think it's terrible to judge a SCOTUS nominee based on the president nominating him, well, that's what happened to Merrick Garland.

Where were your cries of "foul" when it was total clear that McConnell's refusal to even TALK to Garland had nothing to do with Garland, and everything to do with disrespecting the president who nominated him, Obama?

My disgust with Kavanaugh's performance at the Senate hearing has NOTHING to do with Trump (except that the performance was calculated to maintain Trump's support, which it did--my understanding is that Kavanaugh was advised to come on strong).

It had everything to do with the way Senate Republicans treated Obama, Garland and Blasey-Ford.

I don't like Neil Gorsuch as a judge, but I couldn't contest his qualifications and it wasn't HIS fault that McConnell played dirty politics with SCOTUS. Had I been him, however, I might have considered politely declining to be considered until the Senate interviewed Garland and considered him, because that maneuver undermined the credibility of SCOTUS and impartial justices.

I'm also disgusted with the double-standard that awful behavior by Republicans is tolerated because the ends justify the means, while Democrats are held accountable for the sort of behavior Al Franken engaged in (by their own party, even).

Liberals Clarify Their Racism Is Actually Democratic Racism

WORLDLiberals seem to have a problem as more Justin Trudeau blackface photos have surfaced. Meanwhile, Democratic politicians in America continue to say anti-semitic things.

In their defense, liberals have come out to clarify that their racism isn't the destructive kind condemned by most of humanity, but rather, it's a new improved form called "democratic racism."
"It's not racism---it's democratic racism," Justin Trudeau assured supporters as 78 new images surfaced of him in various shades of brown makeup. "It's totally different from regular racism, and to imply that our racism is the same as the bad kind of racism is ignorant."
To separate the new democratic racism from old, boring racism, liberals pointed out that their form is very popular, and that their base is willing to defend their racist actions and comments. "See, they voted for us, and no matter what crazy racist comments we make, they'll vote for us again," said Ilhan Omar. "Where regular racism is condemned by all, democratic racism is voted for by our supporters. So it's, like, democratic."
"Also, white men are bad."
https://babylonbee.com/news/liberals-clarify-their-racism-is-actually-democratic-racism

Dems Invoke Tried And True Strategy Of Obnoxiously Screaming About Kavanaugh

WASHINGTON, D.C.As they enter into the high-stakes 2020 race, Democrats are growing concerned that they don't have a solid strategy for taking on Donald Trump. But now, the universe has given them an answer in the form of new baseless Kavanaugh accusations published by the New York Times.

Democrats began tripping over themselves to rally their base using the proven, effective strategy of obnoxiously screaming about the Supreme Court justice.
"Remember how well this all worked out for us last time?" said Kamala Harris excitedly as a coalition of Democratic leaders got together for a strategic session. "It is time for us to turn the obnoxiousness up to 11. The American people really went head over heels for us last time. Booker, I want you to give one of your big, epic speeches. Those always speak right to the heart of middle America."
Booker nodded in the affirmative and began to launch into a speech but Harris cut him off again. "Save it for the campaign trail, Spartacus. We've got to start tweeting about Kavanaugh ASAP."
"Alexandria, you're really good at the Twitter thing. Start tweeting right away!"
Ocasio-Cortez then looked up from her phone, which was clearly running Candy Crush. "Oh, I wasn't listening. I was thinking of something else."
https://babylonbee.com/news/dems-turn-to-proven-effective-strategy-of-acting-really-obnoxious-about-kavanaugh

Jinx 2 said:

---

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.

---

Again, you're projecting. The keep labeling me and attacking a straw man while ignoring arguments. Not that it will make a difference, but notice how now you started accurately discussing the travel ban. Initially, you called it a "Muslim ban," which is what I took issue with - it was in no way shape or form a "Muslim ban," and to mis-characterize it as such is stupid at best and intentionally deceptive at worst. While the question of a selective travel ban is a separate issue I am happy to discuss, the umbrage always has been the lying and calling it a "Muslim ban," which anyone with a triple-digit IQ could figure out.

Similarly with your claims of "anti-immigration." At best, you're not smart enough to realize we have an illegal immigration problem exacerbated by our southern border. You can distract with all your typical racial bogeymen all day long, but look at a map ... if you can walk here from Europe, you're in the wrong business. At worst, another example of intentionally mischaracterizing in order to fool the masses. Again, if you support unlimited illegal immigration, that's a separate conversation; but anyone with a brain can understand the difference between opposing illegal immigration and being "anti-immigration."

Glad you came around to my POV on Russia. And I get if Ford recanted her accusations you would still Kavanaugh assaulted her. Maybe you did, but I do not recall you answering: would you be happy to have your son convicted on similar evidence? I just am not a big fan of lynch mobs, real or virtual.

Similarly, the issue again around "white nationalism" is the mischaracterization of the Charlottesville lie. I think the dot you struggle to connect is that what triggers me an others is the regular, frequent mischaracterization of things in order to product propaganda and deceive. I would gladly take David Duke voting Republican than having the Grand Wizard of the KKK a Senate leader for a generation and his being called "the conscience of the Senate." That disconnect is why I worry about your EQ.

I cannot help but think if you had confidence in your arguments, you would not have to constantly resort to mischaracterizing and name calling. I wonder why that always is where you land? Maybe you should ask yourself that.

Kyle said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

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.

---

Again, you're projecting. The keep labeling me and attacking a straw man while ignoring arguments. Not that it will make a difference, but notice how now you started accurately discussing the travel ban. Initially, you called it a "Muslim ban," which is what I took issue with - it was in no way shape or form a "Muslim ban," and to mis-characterize it as such is stupid at best and intentionally deceptive at worst. While the question of a selective travel ban is a separate issue I am happy to discuss, the umbrage always has been the lying and calling it a "Muslim ban," which anyone with a triple-digit IQ could figure out.

Similarly with your claims of "anti-immigration." At best, you're not smart enough to realize we have an illegal immigration problem exacerbated by our southern border. You can distract with all your typical racial bogeymen all day long, but look at a map ... if you can walk here from Europe, you're in the wrong business. At worst, another example of intentionally mischaracterizing in order to fool the masses. Again, if you support unlimited illegal immigration, that's a separate conversation; but anyone with a brain can understand the difference between opposing illegal immigration and being "anti-immigration."

Glad you came around to my POV on Russia. And I get if Ford recanted her accusations you would still Kavanaugh assaulted her. Maybe you did, but I do not recall you answering: would you be happy to have your son convicted on similar evidence? I just am not a big fan of lynch mobs, real or virtual.

Similarly, the issue again around "white nationalism" is the mischaracterization of the Charlottesville lie. I think the dot you struggle to connect is that what triggers me an others is the regular, frequent mischaracterization of things in order to product propaganda and deceive. I would gladly take David Duke voting Republican than having the Grand Wizard of the KKK a Senate leader for a generation and his being called "the conscience of the Senate." That disconnect is why I worry about your EQ.

I cannot help but think if you had confidence in your arguments, you would not have to constantly resort to mischaracterizing and name calling. I wonder why that always is where you land? Maybe you should ask yourself that.

---

We have several problems at the border:

An illegal immigration problem we've had for years, and which has been quietly tolerated by lots of conservatives as a source of cheap labor, which has been an engine of the U.S. economy since slavery was legal. We fought a war over that one. We wouldn't have a problem with undocumented migrants working in the U.S. if people wouldn't hire them. It seems like we'd address THAT side of the equation more than we do. Why don't we? Possibly because cheap labor is really popular amongst titans of industry including Donald Trump?

A humanitarian crisis where individuals and families are fleeing failed states where the rule of law no longer exists, to which we've responded by kidnapping kids and keeping them in inhumane conditions.

A smuggling problem where illegal drugs and other merchandise are coming across the border (which is also happening at cirports).

People have a legal right to request asylum. I've stated numerous times on this forum that it's obvious that we don't have to grant asylum to anyone--but that has been a right we have offered for years. THAT is not an immigraiton problem; it's a humanitarian crisis.

Dealing with migrants who are coming , and going illegally to work, who either put down roots here OR send money home, is a different issue altogether. Trump has jumbled refugees seeking asylum and economic illegal migrants into a single pot. Some people may indeed be requesting asylum because they'd rather live in the U.S. because they''re job propsects are better. The asylum hearing should ID thos epeople and not grant them asylum.

A crack-down on immigraiton should involve employers as well as employees. Do you seriously think everyone employing undocumented workers is a Democrat?

As for the drug smuggling, we didn't even have the political will to stop a wealthy American family from addicting people all over the U.S. to opioids. The illegal drug market obviously has more fronts than the border with Mexico, and we aren't winning on any of them.

I bet Brett wishes he only got the Garland treatment in the approval process. The democrats have no room to talk about the treatment of judicial nominees after their disgraceful treatment of Brett. He was treated 100 times worse than Garland was treated and would have been treated had there been a vote. The democrats have set a new low bar.

contrario said:

---

I bet Brett wishes he only got the Garland treatment in the approval process. The democrats have no room to talk about the treatment of judicial nominees after their disgraceful treatment of Brett. He was treated 100 times worse than Garland was treated and would have been treated had there been a vote. The democrats have set a new low bar.

---

My guess--and this is just a guess, because I haven't really read anything about that--is that some (not all) Democrats jumped on Blasey-Ford's allegations because of the way Kavanaugh and Ken Starr treated Bill Clinton.

Whatever you think of Bill Clinton, Trump has done the same kind of behavior or worse (although not in the White House) and Republicans--including evantelicals--are obviously OK with this. Democrats were and are angry that the likes of Newt Gingrich - who has his own record of maritall misconduct--treated Clinton so badly, with the help of Starr and Kavanaugh.

My personal judgment is that the "tit for tat" reason for attacking Kavanaugh is wrong.

But I also believe that, in the Me Too era and given the embarrasing performance of Republcians AND Democrats over allegations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas.

I think Dem leaders felt they didn't have a choice, and were initially relunctant. Then the GOP Senate judiciary committee members were jersk and Kavanaugh had his melt-down, snarling at Amy Kobachar and evading other sneators' questions. He made them mad.

So the thing escalated. The same strategy that won Kavanaugh Trump's undying support and elicited a GOP-celebrated monologue from Lindsay Graham pissed Democrats off.

So we continue the path downward.

This is just my reading of how this whole sorry business has unfolded. I honestly think if Kavanaugh had acknowledged a knownth truth that he HAS lied about--the fact that he drank to excess often and had blackouts--and used the GWBush line about "when I was young and foolist, I was young and foolist" things would have gone better.

Jinx 2 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

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.

---

Your implication was/is that Keyser's testimony is more valid or truthful or worthy of considering than Blasey Ford's. It wasn't. And it changed.

Oh Lordy, if Blasey Ford's testimony had changed, you fellas would be all over that because you'd say the inconsistency proves either that she's lying or that her memories are totally inaccurate. But you're prepared to accept Keyser's changing her mind as the gospel truth as long as what she says supports Kavauagh.

Kavanaugh's in there, and for the record, I think Democrats would be stupid to try to impeach him. But the GOP has fouled both the SCOTUS selection process by not even considering Obama's nominee, a final act of 8 years of disrespect and obstructive that I view as unforgivable (McConnell's the guy who should be impeached) and SCOTUS itself by appointing not one, but 2 guys who have behaved like jerks with women.

---

She has no reason to lie. Blasey Ford did.

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Your implication was/is that Keyser's testimony is more valid or truthful or worthy of considering than Blasey Ford's. It wasn't. And it changed.

Oh Lordy, if Blasey Ford's testimony had changed, you fellas would be all over that because you'd say the inconsistency proves either that she's lying or that her memories are totally inaccurate. But you're prepared to accept Keyser's changing her mind as the gospel truth as long as what she says supports Kavauagh.

Kavanaugh's in there, and for the record, I think Democrats would be stupid to try to impeach him. But the GOP has fouled both the SCOTUS selection process by not even considering Obama's nominee, a final act of 8 years of disrespect and obstructive that I view as unforgivable (McConnell's the guy who should be impeached) and SCOTUS itself by appointing not one, but 2 guys who have behaved like jerks with women.

---

She has no reason to lie. Blasey Ford did.

---

Keyser has obviously gotten pressure from both sides.

And Blasey Ford had no reason to lie. This whole sordid affair has had a much worse impact on her life than Kavanaugh's. HE's on SCOTUS. SHE's in hiding, facing security threats from the human pit bulls among Trump supporters. No one would sign up for ithat unles sthey felt they had a duty to do so. Which is what Balsey Ford says motivated her. I believe her.

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier 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.

---

It's not obvious. You believe all of that because she said so with zero...and I mean zero evidence and no one backing her story. That's just how crazy you hate Trump.

---

If you think it's terrible to judge a SCOTUS nominee based on the president nominating him, well, that's what happened to Merrick Garland.

Where were your cries of "foul" when it was total clear that McConnell's refusal to even TALK to Garland had nothing to do with Garland, and everything to do with disrespecting the president who nominated him, Obama?

My disgust with Kavanaugh's performance at the Senate hearing has NOTHING to do with Trump (except that the performance was calculated to maintain Trump's support, which it did--my understanding is that Kavanaugh was advised to come on strong).

It had everything to do with the way Senate Republicans treated Obama, Garland and Blasey-Ford.

I don't like Neil Gorsuch as a judge, but I couldn't contest his qualifications and it wasn't HIS fault that McConnell played dirty politics with SCOTUS. Had I been him, however, I might have considered politely declining to be considered until the Senate interviewed Garland and considered him, because that maneuver undermined the credibility of SCOTUS and impartial justices.

I'm also disgusted with the double-standard that awful behavior by Republicans is tolerated because the ends justify the means, while Democrats are held accountable for the sort of behavior Al Franken engaged in (by their own party, even).

---

1. I don't.
2. I didn't see it as foul as Dems would have done the same thing.
3. Garland wasn't mistreated and neither was Ford. Ford was handled with kid gloves when she shouldn't have been...
4. What awful behavior are you talking about?

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Your implication was/is that Keyser's testimony is more valid or truthful or worthy of considering than Blasey Ford's. It wasn't. And it changed.

Oh Lordy, if Blasey Ford's testimony had changed, you fellas would be all over that because you'd say the inconsistency proves either that she's lying or that her memories are totally inaccurate. But you're prepared to accept Keyser's changing her mind as the gospel truth as long as what she says supports Kavauagh.

Kavanaugh's in there, and for the record, I think Democrats would be stupid to try to impeach him. But the GOP has fouled both the SCOTUS selection process by not even considering Obama's nominee, a final act of 8 years of disrespect and obstructive that I view as unforgivable (McConnell's the guy who should be impeached) and SCOTUS itself by appointing not one, but 2 guys who have behaved like jerks with women.

---

She has no reason to lie. Blasey Ford did.

---

She's obviously gotten pressure from both sides.

And Blasey Ford had no reason to lie. This whole sordid affair has had a much worse impact on her life than Kavanaugh's. HE's on SCOTUS. SHE's in hiding, facing security threats from the human pit bulls among Trump supporters. No one would sign up for ithat unles sthey felt they had a duty to do so. Which is what Balsey Ford says motivated her. I believe her.

---

She did have reason to lie and her friend and attorney have provided it. Perhaps you haven't kept up?

1. She was afraid that Kavanaugh would tip the court agains tRoe V Wade
2. She also received about $1 million for her testimony.
3. Her life should be ruined by her lying, falsification. REPEAT: NO ONE...NOT ONE PERSON backs her claims...even her parents.
4. She lied. Get over it.

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.

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.

---

If a nominee's character can be tarnished with evidence as flimsy as this, then the days of having nine justices above reproach are over.

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

I bet Brett wishes he only got the Garland treatment in the approval process. The democrats have no room to talk about the treatment of judicial nominees after their disgraceful treatment of Brett. He was treated 100 times worse than Garland was treated and would have been treated had there been a vote. The democrats have set a new low bar.

---

My guess--and this is just a guess, because I haven't really read anything about that--is that some (not all) Democrats jumped on Blasey-Ford's allegations because of the way Kavanaugh and Ken Starr treated Bill Clinton.

Whatever you think of Bill Clinton, Trump has done the same kind of behavior or worse (although not in the White House) and Republicans--including evantelicals--are obviously OK with this. Democrats were and are angry that the likes of Newt Gingrich - who has his own record of maritall misconduct--treated Clinton so badly, with the help of Starr and Kavanaugh.

My personal judgment is that the "tit for tat" reason for attacking Kavanaugh is wrong.

But I also believe that, in the Me Too era and given the embarrasing performance of Republcians AND Democrats over allegations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas.

I think Dem leaders felt they didn't have a choice, and were initially relunctant. Then the GOP Senate judiciary committee members were jersk and Kavanaugh had his melt-down, snarling at Amy Kobachar and evading other sneators' questions. He made them mad.

So the thing escalated. The same strategy that won Kavanaugh Trump's undying support and elicited a GOP-celebrated monologue from Lindsay Graham pissed Democrats off.

So we continue the path downward.

This is just my reading of how this whole sorry business has unfolded. I honestly think if Kavanaugh had acknowledged a knownth truth that he HAS lied about--the fact that he drank to excess often and had blackouts--and used the GWBush line about "when I was young and foolist, I was young and foolist" things would have gone better.

---

Republicans--including evantelicals--are obviously OK with this.

I literally know no one who voted for Trump that thinks this way. No one on this board has indicated so either. So what do you base this false claim on?

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier 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.

---

It's not obvious. You believe all of that because she said so with zero...and I mean zero evidence and no one backing her story. That's just how crazy you hate Trump.

---

If you think it's terrible to judge a SCOTUS nominee based on the president nominating him, well, that's what happened to Merrick Garland.

Where were your cries of "foul" when it was total clear that McConnell's refusal to even TALK to Garland had nothing to do with Garland, and everything to do with disrespecting the president who nominated him, Obama?

My disgust with Kavanaugh's performance at the Senate hearing has NOTHING to do with Trump (except that the performance was calculated to maintain Trump's support, which it did--my understanding is that Kavanaugh was advised to come on strong).

It had everything to do with the way Senate Republicans treated Obama, Garland and Blasey-Ford.

I don't like Neil Gorsuch as a judge, but I couldn't contest his qualifications and it wasn't HIS fault that McConnell played dirty politics with SCOTUS. Had I been him, however, I might have considered politely declining to be considered until the Senate interviewed Garland and considered him, because that maneuver undermined the credibility of SCOTUS and impartial justices.

I'm also disgusted with the double-standard that awful behavior by Republicans is tolerated because the ends justify the means, while Democrats are held accountable for the sort of behavior Al Franken engaged in (by their own party, even).

---

1. I don't.
2. I didn't see it as foul as Dems would have done the same thing.
3. Garland wasn't mistreated and neither was Ford. Ford was handled with kid gloves when she shouldn't have been...
4. What awful behavior are you talking about?

---

Garland wasn't smeared. He was humilated.

FWIT, a federal judge agrees with you and totally fails to see that Democrats have a valid reason for anger re: Merrick Garland. I think Republicans understimate the anger over what happened with GArland's appointment, the obvious disrespect to Obama, who had dealt with birthers and racist smears against his wife and kids for 8 years, and the humilation of a good man and good judge, at their peril.

Some people who agree with me are Republicans, but the less partisasn variety who don't subscribe to Trump inerrancy and the narrative that everything Trump does is right/moral/justified and everything Democrats do is wrong/immogral/unjustified. Those include the moderator of the discussion I attended last week, a hard-right libertarian and federalist society faculty adviser who counted that among the "race to the bottom" in the politiczation of court appointments.

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Your implication was/is that Keyser's testimony is more valid or truthful or worthy of considering than Blasey Ford's. It wasn't. And it changed.

Oh Lordy, if Blasey Ford's testimony had changed, you fellas would be all over that because you'd say the inconsistency proves either that she's lying or that her memories are totally inaccurate. But you're prepared to accept Keyser's changing her mind as the gospel truth as long as what she says supports Kavauagh.

Kavanaugh's in there, and for the record, I think Democrats would be stupid to try to impeach him. But the GOP has fouled both the SCOTUS selection process by not even considering Obama's nominee, a final act of 8 years of disrespect and obstructive that I view as unforgivable (McConnell's the guy who should be impeached) and SCOTUS itself by appointing not one, but 2 guys who have behaved like jerks with women.

---

She has no reason to lie. Blasey Ford did.

---

Keyser has obviously gotten pressure from both sides.

---

According to whom?

Osodecentx said:

---

Dems Invoke Tried And True Strategy Of Obnoxiously Screaming About Kavanaugh

WASHINGTON, D.C.As they enter into the high-stakes 2020 race, Democrats are growing concerned that they don't have a solid strategy for taking on Donald Trump. But now, the universe has given them an answer in the form of new baseless Kavanaugh accusations published by the New York Times.

Democrats began tripping over themselves to rally their base using the proven, effective strategy of obnoxiously screaming about the Supreme Court justice.
"Remember how well this all worked out for us last time?" said Kamala Harris excitedly as a coalition of Democratic leaders got together for a strategic session. "It is time for us to turn the obnoxiousness up to 11. The American people really went head over heels for us last time. Booker, I want you to give one of your big, epic speeches. Those always speak right to the heart of middle America."
Booker nodded in the affirmative and began to launch into a speech but Harris cut him off again. "Save it for the campaign trail, Spartacus. We've got to start tweeting about Kavanaugh ASAP."
"Alexandria, you're really good at the Twitter thing. Start tweeting right away!"
Ocasio-Cortez then looked up from her phone, which was clearly running Candy Crush. "Oh, I wasn't listening. I was thinking of something else."
https://babylonbee.com/news/dems-turn-to-proven-effective-strategy-of-acting-really-obnoxious-about-kavanaugh

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier 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.

---

It's not obvious. You believe all of that because she said so with zero...and I mean zero evidence and no one backing her story. That's just how crazy you hate Trump.

---

If you think it's terrible to judge a SCOTUS nominee based on the president nominating him, well, that's what happened to Merrick Garland.

Where were your cries of "foul" when it was total clear that McConnell's refusal to even TALK to Garland had nothing to do with Garland, and everything to do with disrespecting the president who nominated him, Obama?

My disgust with Kavanaugh's performance at the Senate hearing has NOTHING to do with Trump (except that the performance was calculated to maintain Trump's support, which it did--my understanding is that Kavanaugh was advised to come on strong).

It had everything to do with the way Senate Republicans treated Obama, Garland and Blasey-Ford.

I don't like Neil Gorsuch as a judge, but I couldn't contest his qualifications and it wasn't HIS fault that McConnell played dirty politics with SCOTUS. Had I been him, however, I might have considered politely declining to be considered until the Senate interviewed Garland and considered him, because that maneuver undermined the credibility of SCOTUS and impartial justices.

I'm also disgusted with the double-standard that awful behavior by Republicans is tolerated because the ends justify the means, while Democrats are held accountable for the sort of behavior Al Franken engaged in (by their own party, even).

---

1. I don't.
2. I didn't see it as foul as Dems would have done the same thing.
3. Garland wasn't mistreated and neither was Ford. Ford was handled with kid gloves when she shouldn't have been...
4. What awful behavior are you talking about?

---

Garland wasn't smeared. He was humilated.

FWIT, a federal judge agrees with you and totally fails to see that Democrats have a valid reason for anger re: Merrick Garland. I think Republicans understimate the anger over what happened with GArland's appointment, the obvious disrespect to Obama, who had dealt with birthers and racist smears against his wife and kids for 8 years, and the humilation of a good man and good judge, at their peril.

Some people who agree with me are Republicans, but the less partisasn variety who don't subscribe to Trump inerrancy and the narrative that everything Trump does is right/moral/justified and everything Democrats do is wrong/immogral/unjustified. Those include the moderator of the discussion I attended last week, a hard-right libertarian and federalist society faculty adviser who counted that among the "race to the bottom" in the politiczation of court appointments.

---

I would expect during an election year, if the president and senate are not from the same party, the judge confirmation would not see the light of day. I wasn't surprised.

It's funny how people like you are upset about the "nuclear" option used by Republicans but somehow missed r=that the Dems started it.

In the end, despite Ford's horrible attempt at lying and the Dems obvious last-minute political ploy and attempt to capitalize on the meToo movement (which was stupid to begin with) the good guys won. Kavanaugh, a respected judge...even by the numerous women who have worked with him, was confirmed.

fadskier said:

---

In the end, despite Ford's horrible attempt at lying and the Dems obvious last-minute political ploy and attempt to capitalize on the meToo movement (which was stupid to begin with) the good guys won. Kavanaugh, a respected judge...even by the numerous women who have worked with him, was confirmed.

---

The GOP succeeded brilliantly in fcosuing everyone on Blasey-Ford and Keyser when the real bombshell in the book is the experience of Debbie Ramirez, where there were several witnesses.

Kavanaugh may be on SCOTUS and he won't lose his seat. But 'respected"? My guess is that he'll be shunned by lots of high-profile instituions that would otherwise invite him to teach as an adjunct, and that he won't sell as many books as the other SCOTUS justices--a time-honored way for SCOTUS justices, including Scalia, to cash in on their celebrity as a way of making up for the low salaries they take compared to what they could make at a firm.

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

In the end, despite Ford's horrible attempt at lying and the Dems obvious last-minute political ploy and attempt to capitalize on the meToo movement (which was stupid to begin with) the good guys won. Kavanaugh, a respected judge...even by the numerous women who have worked with him, was confirmed.

---

The GOP succeeded brilliantly in fcosuing everyone on Blasey-Ford and Keyser when the real bombshell in the book is the experience of Debbie Ramirez, where there were several witnesses.

Kavanaugh may be on SCOTUS and he won't lose his seat. But 'respected"? My guess is that he'll be shunned by lots of high-profile instituions that would otherwise invite him to teach as an adjunct, and that he won't sell as many books as the other SCOTUS justices--a time-honored way for SCOTUS justices, including Scalia, to cash in on their celebrity as a way of making up for the low salaries they take compared to what they could make at a firm.

---

How do you feel about RBG praising and liking Kavanaugh?

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier 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.

---

It's not obvious. You believe all of that because she said so with zero...and I mean zero evidence and no one backing her story. That's just how crazy you hate Trump.

---

If you think it's terrible to judge a SCOTUS nominee based on the president nominating him, well, that's what happened to Merrick Garland.

Where were your cries of "foul" when it was total clear that McConnell's refusal to even TALK to Garland had nothing to do with Garland, and everything to do with disrespecting the president who nominated him, Obama?

My disgust with Kavanaugh's performance at the Senate hearing has NOTHING to do with Trump (except that the performance was calculated to maintain Trump's support, which it did--my understanding is that Kavanaugh was advised to come on strong).

It had everything to do with the way Senate Republicans treated Obama, Garland and Blasey-Ford.

I don't like Neil Gorsuch as a judge, but I couldn't contest his qualifications and it wasn't HIS fault that McConnell played dirty politics with SCOTUS. Had I been him, however, I might have considered politely declining to be considered until the Senate interviewed Garland and considered him, because that maneuver undermined the credibility of SCOTUS and impartial justices.

I'm also disgusted with the double-standard that awful behavior by Republicans is tolerated because the ends justify the means, while Democrats are held accountable for the sort of behavior Al Franken engaged in (by their own party, even).

---

1. I don't.
2. I didn't see it as foul as Dems would have done the same thing.
3. Garland wasn't mistreated and neither was Ford. Ford was handled with kid gloves when she shouldn't have been...
4. What awful behavior are you talking about?

---

Garland wasn't smeared. He was humilated.

FWIT, a federal judge agrees with you and totally fails to see that Democrats have a valid reason for anger re: Merrick Garland. I think Republicans understimate the anger over what happened with GArland's appointment, the obvious disrespect to Obama, who had dealt with birthers and racist smears against his wife and kids for 8 years, and the humilation of a good man and good judge, at their peril.

Some people who agree with me are Republicans, but the less partisasn variety who don't subscribe to Trump inerrancy and the narrative that everything Trump does is right/moral/justified and everything Democrats do is wrong/immogral/unjustified. Those include the moderator of the discussion I attended last week, a hard-right libertarian and federalist society faculty adviser who counted that among the "race to the bottom" in the politiczation of court appointments.

---

I would expect during an election year, if the president and senate are not from the same party, the judge confirmation would not see the light of day. I wasn't surprised.

It's funny how people like you are upset about the "nuclear" option used by Republicans but somehow missed r=that the Dems started it.

---

"People like me" also don't buy the narrative that whatever nastiness the GOP dishes out is cuz Democrats did it first.

And I learned that "They started it" wasn't a good argument for bad, mean or unethical behavior in grade school.

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.

---

Jinx, I really want to read your response to this post.

You keep saying how much you hate negativity and nasty attacks. This is an opportunity for productive discussion.

What do you say?

Jinx 2 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

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.

---

Again, you're projecting. The keep labeling me and attacking a straw man while ignoring arguments. Not that it will make a difference, but notice how now you started accurately discussing the travel ban. Initially, you called it a "Muslim ban," which is what I took issue with - it was in no way shape or form a "Muslim ban," and to mis-characterize it as such is stupid at best and intentionally deceptive at worst. While the question of a selective travel ban is a separate issue I am happy to discuss, the umbrage always has been the lying and calling it a "Muslim ban," which anyone with a triple-digit IQ could figure out.

Similarly with your claims of "anti-immigration." At best, you're not smart enough to realize we have an illegal immigration problem exacerbated by our southern border. You can distract with all your typical racial bogeymen all day long, but look at a map ... if you can walk here from Europe, you're in the wrong business. At worst, another example of intentionally mischaracterizing in order to fool the masses. Again, if you support unlimited illegal immigration, that's a separate conversation; but anyone with a brain can understand the difference between opposing illegal immigration and being "anti-immigration."

Glad you came around to my POV on Russia. And I get if Ford recanted her accusations you would still Kavanaugh assaulted her. Maybe you did, but I do not recall you answering: would you be happy to have your son convicted on similar evidence? I just am not a big fan of lynch mobs, real or virtual.

Similarly, the issue again around "white nationalism" is the mischaracterization of the Charlottesville lie. I think the dot you struggle to connect is that what triggers me an others is the regular, frequent mischaracterization of things in order to product propaganda and deceive. I would gladly take David Duke voting Republican than having the Grand Wizard of the KKK a Senate leader for a generation and his being called "the conscience of the Senate." That disconnect is why I worry about your EQ.

I cannot help but think if you had confidence in your arguments, you would not have to constantly resort to mischaracterizing and name calling. I wonder why that always is where you land? Maybe you should ask yourself that.

---

We have several problems at the border:

An illegal immigration problem we've had for years, and which has been quietly tolerated by lots of conservatives as a source of cheap labor, which has been an engine of the U.S. economy since slavery was legal. We fought a war over that one. We wouldn't have a problem with undocumented migrants working in the U.S. if people wouldn't hire them. It seems like we'd address THAT side of the equation more than we do. Why don't we? Possibly because cheap labor is really popular amongst titans of industry including Donald Trump?

A humanitarian crisis where individuals and families are fleeing failed states where the rule of law no longer exists, to which we've responded by kidnapping kids and keeping them in inhumane conditions.

A smuggling problem where illegal drugs and other merchandise are coming across the border (which is also happening at cirports).

People have a legal right to request asylum. I've stated numerous times on this forum that it's obvious that we don't have to grant asylum to anyone--but that has been a right we have offered for years. THAT is not an immigraiton problem; it's a humanitarian crisis.

Dealing with migrants who are coming , and going illegally to work, who either put down roots here OR send money home, is a different issue altogether. Trump has jumbled refugees seeking asylum and economic illegal migrants into a single pot. Some people may indeed be requesting asylum because they'd rather live in the U.S. because they''re job propsects are better. The asylum hearing should ID thos epeople and not grant them asylum.

A crack-down on immigraiton should involve employers as well as employees. Do you seriously think everyone employing undocumented workers is a Democrat?

As for the drug smuggling, we didn't even have the political will to stop a wealthy American family from addicting people all over the U.S. to opioids. The illegal drug market obviously has more fronts than the border with Mexico, and we aren't winning on any of them.

---

I agree, which is why trying to simplify things into "anti-immigration" or "racism" is unhelpful.

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier 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.

---

It's not obvious. You believe all of that because she said so with zero...and I mean zero evidence and no one backing her story. That's just how crazy you hate Trump.

---

If you think it's terrible to judge a SCOTUS nominee based on the president nominating him, well, that's what happened to Merrick Garland.

Where were your cries of "foul" when it was total clear that McConnell's refusal to even TALK to Garland had nothing to do with Garland, and everything to do with disrespecting the president who nominated him, Obama?

My disgust with Kavanaugh's performance at the Senate hearing has NOTHING to do with Trump (except that the performance was calculated to maintain Trump's support, which it did--my understanding is that Kavanaugh was advised to come on strong).

It had everything to do with the way Senate Republicans treated Obama, Garland and Blasey-Ford.

I don't like Neil Gorsuch as a judge, but I couldn't contest his qualifications and it wasn't HIS fault that McConnell played dirty politics with SCOTUS. Had I been him, however, I might have considered politely declining to be considered until the Senate interviewed Garland and considered him, because that maneuver undermined the credibility of SCOTUS and impartial justices.

I'm also disgusted with the double-standard that awful behavior by Republicans is tolerated because the ends justify the means, while Democrats are held accountable for the sort of behavior Al Franken engaged in (by their own party, even).

---

1. I don't.
2. I didn't see it as foul as Dems would have done the same thing.
3. Garland wasn't mistreated and neither was Ford. Ford was handled with kid gloves when she shouldn't have been...
4. What awful behavior are you talking about?

---

Garland wasn't smeared. He was humilated.

FWIT, a federal judge agrees with you and totally fails to see that Democrats have a valid reason for anger re: Merrick Garland. I think Republicans understimate the anger over what happened with GArland's appointment, the obvious disrespect to Obama, who had dealt with birthers and racist smears against his wife and kids for 8 years, and the humilation of a good man and good judge, at their peril.

Some people who agree with me are Republicans, but the less partisasn variety who don't subscribe to Trump inerrancy and the narrative that everything Trump does is right/moral/justified and everything Democrats do is wrong/immogral/unjustified. Those include the moderator of the discussion I attended last week, a hard-right libertarian and federalist society faculty adviser who counted that among the "race to the bottom" in the politiczation of court appointments.

---

I would expect during an election year, if the president and senate are not from the same party, the judge confirmation would not see the light of day. I wasn't surprised.

It's funny how people like you are upset about the "nuclear" option used by Republicans but somehow missed r=that the Dems started it.

---

"People like me" also don't buy the narrative that whatever nastiness the GOP dishes out is cuz Democrats did it first.

And I learned that "They started it" wasn't a good argument for bad, mean or unethical behavior in grade school.

---

Then why do you bring up Garland every time conservatives talk about Kavanaugh. It is your go to defense: "Garland was treated bad (he wasn't, comparatively), so nothing is off limits with Kavanaugh." That is the definition of "they started it." Get a grip.

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier 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.

---

It's not obvious. You believe all of that because she said so with zero...and I mean zero evidence and no one backing her story. That's just how crazy you hate Trump.

---

If you think it's terrible to judge a SCOTUS nominee based on the president nominating him, well, that's what happened to Merrick Garland.

Where were your cries of "foul" when it was total clear that McConnell's refusal to even TALK to Garland had nothing to do with Garland, and everything to do with disrespecting the president who nominated him, Obama?

My disgust with Kavanaugh's performance at the Senate hearing has NOTHING to do with Trump (except that the performance was calculated to maintain Trump's support, which it did--my understanding is that Kavanaugh was advised to come on strong).

It had everything to do with the way Senate Republicans treated Obama, Garland and Blasey-Ford.

I don't like Neil Gorsuch as a judge, but I couldn't contest his qualifications and it wasn't HIS fault that McConnell played dirty politics with SCOTUS. Had I been him, however, I might have considered politely declining to be considered until the Senate interviewed Garland and considered him, because that maneuver undermined the credibility of SCOTUS and impartial justices.

I'm also disgusted with the double-standard that awful behavior by Republicans is tolerated because the ends justify the means, while Democrats are held accountable for the sort of behavior Al Franken engaged in (by their own party, even).

---

1. I don't.
2. I didn't see it as foul as Dems would have done the same thing.
3. Garland wasn't mistreated and neither was Ford. Ford was handled with kid gloves when she shouldn't have been...
4. What awful behavior are you talking about?

---

Garland wasn't smeared. He was humilated.

FWIT, a federal judge agrees with you and totally fails to see that Democrats have a valid reason for anger re: Merrick Garland. I think Republicans understimate the anger over what happened with GArland's appointment, the obvious disrespect to Obama, who had dealt with birthers and racist smears against his wife and kids for 8 years, and the humilation of a good man and good judge, at their peril.

Some people who agree with me are Republicans, but the less partisasn variety who don't subscribe to Trump inerrancy and the narrative that everything Trump does is right/moral/justified and everything Democrats do is wrong/immogral/unjustified. Those include the moderator of the discussion I attended last week, a hard-right libertarian and federalist society faculty adviser who counted that among the "race to the bottom" in the politiczation of court appointments.

---

I would expect during an election year, if the president and senate are not from the same party, the judge confirmation would not see the light of day. I wasn't surprised.

It's funny how people like you are upset about the "nuclear" option used by Republicans but somehow missed r=that the Dems started it.

---

"People like me" also don't buy the narrative that whatever nastiness the GOP dishes out is cuz Democrats did it first.

And I learned that "They started it" wasn't a good argument for bad, mean or unethical behavior in grade school.

---

Then you should stop using that argument, because you use it with some frequency.

---

Democrats can't see what you mention

They're myopic

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier 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.

---

It's not obvious. You believe all of that because she said so with zero...and I mean zero evidence and no one backing her story. That's just how crazy you hate Trump.

---

If you think it's terrible to judge a SCOTUS nominee based on the president nominating him, well, that's what happened to Merrick Garland.

Where were your cries of "foul" when it was total clear that McConnell's refusal to even TALK to Garland had nothing to do with Garland, and everything to do with disrespecting the president who nominated him, Obama?

My disgust with Kavanaugh's performance at the Senate hearing has NOTHING to do with Trump (except that the performance was calculated to maintain Trump's support, which it did--my understanding is that Kavanaugh was advised to come on strong).

It had everything to do with the way Senate Republicans treated Obama, Garland and Blasey-Ford.

I don't like Neil Gorsuch as a judge, but I couldn't contest his qualifications and it wasn't HIS fault that McConnell played dirty politics with SCOTUS. Had I been him, however, I might have considered politely declining to be considered until the Senate interviewed Garland and considered him, because that maneuver undermined the credibility of SCOTUS and impartial justices.

I'm also disgusted with the double-standard that awful behavior by Republicans is tolerated because the ends justify the means, while Democrats are held accountable for the sort of behavior Al Franken engaged in (by their own party, even).

---

1. I don't.
2. I didn't see it as foul as Dems would have done the same thing.
3. Garland wasn't mistreated and neither was Ford. Ford was handled with kid gloves when she shouldn't have been...
4. What awful behavior are you talking about?

---

Garland wasn't smeared. He was humilated.

FWIT, a federal judge agrees with you and totally fails to see that Democrats have a valid reason for anger re: Merrick Garland. I think Republicans understimate the anger over what happened with GArland's appointment, the obvious disrespect to Obama, who had dealt with birthers and racist smears against his wife and kids for 8 years, and the humilation of a good man and good judge, at their peril.

Some people who agree with me are Republicans, but the less partisasn variety who don't subscribe to Trump inerrancy and the narrative that everything Trump does is right/moral/justified and everything Democrats do is wrong/immogral/unjustified. Those include the moderator of the discussion I attended last week, a hard-right libertarian and federalist society faculty adviser who counted that among the "race to the bottom" in the politiczation of court appointments.

---

I would expect during an election year, if the president and senate are not from the same party, the judge confirmation would not see the light of day. I wasn't surprised.

It's funny how people like you are upset about the "nuclear" option used by Republicans but somehow missed r=that the Dems started it.

---

Gorsuch should have declined the nomination until the Senate agreed to take a vote on Reuben Walworth.

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier 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.

---

It's not obvious. You believe all of that because she said so with zero...and I mean zero evidence and no one backing her story. That's just how crazy you hate Trump.

---

If you think it's terrible to judge a SCOTUS nominee based on the president nominating him, well, that's what happened to Merrick Garland.

Where were your cries of "foul" when it was total clear that McConnell's refusal to even TALK to Garland had nothing to do with Garland, and everything to do with disrespecting the president who nominated him, Obama?

My disgust with Kavanaugh's performance at the Senate hearing has NOTHING to do with Trump (except that the performance was calculated to maintain Trump's support, which it did--my understanding is that Kavanaugh was advised to come on strong).

It had everything to do with the way Senate Republicans treated Obama, Garland and Blasey-Ford.

I don't like Neil Gorsuch as a judge, but I couldn't contest his qualifications and it wasn't HIS fault that McConnell played dirty politics with SCOTUS. Had I been him, however, I might have considered politely declining to be considered until the Senate interviewed Garland and considered him, because that maneuver undermined the credibility of SCOTUS and impartial justices.

I'm also disgusted with the double-standard that awful behavior by Republicans is tolerated because the ends justify the means, while Democrats are held accountable for the sort of behavior Al Franken engaged in (by their own party, even).

---

1. I don't.
2. I didn't see it as foul as Dems would have done the same thing.
3. Garland wasn't mistreated and neither was Ford. Ford was handled with kid gloves when she shouldn't have been...
4. What awful behavior are you talking about?

---

Garland wasn't smeared. He was humilated.

FWIT, a federal judge agrees with you and totally fails to see that Democrats have a valid reason for anger re: Merrick Garland. I think Republicans understimate the anger over what happened with GArland's appointment, the obvious disrespect to Obama, who had dealt with birthers and racist smears against his wife and kids for 8 years, and the humilation of a good man and good judge, at their peril.

Some people who agree with me are Republicans, but the less partisasn variety who don't subscribe to Trump inerrancy and the narrative that everything Trump does is right/moral/justified and everything Democrats do is wrong/immogral/unjustified. Those include the moderator of the discussion I attended last week, a hard-right libertarian and federalist society faculty adviser who counted that among the "race to the bottom" in the politiczation of court appointments.

---

I would expect during an election year, if the president and senate are not from the same party, the judge confirmation would not see the light of day. I wasn't surprised.

It's funny how people like you are upset about the "nuclear" option used by Republicans but somehow missed r=that the Dems started it.

---

"People like me" also don't buy the narrative that whatever nastiness the GOP dishes out is cuz Democrats did it first.

And I learned that "They started it" wasn't a good argument for bad, mean or unethical behavior in grade school.

---

Then why do you bring up Garland every time conservatives talk about Kavanaugh. It is your go to defense: "Garland was treated bad (he wasn't, comparatively), so nothing is off limits with Kavanaugh." That is the definition of "they started it." Get a grip.

---

Garland wasn't even treated. No one even TALKED to him. He didn't GET a hearing. Senators from the opposing party would not meet with him.

That's different from considering his nomination and rejecting him.

Which is why McConnell pulled the stunt he pulled; because Garland was eminantly qualified and a proven moderate--a truly bipartisan option. At the time, McConnell and many other Republicans (including one of my senators, who stated his belief that Hillary would beat Trump 3 weeks befre the election) were far from certain of a GOP victory. So the move was clearly to spite Obama, and Garland was jus the pawn.

Garland didn't get a hearing because, like Gorsuch, he was too credible a nominee not to confirm. So the only way the Republicans could avoid confirming him was to refuse to talk to him. And that's what they did. It was scurrilous, whether you think it was or not.

Just can't wrap your head around that Biden Rule.

God bless you.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Just can't wrap your head around that Biden Rule.

God bless you.

---

And you just can't wrap your head around the fact that there is no "Biden rule" that extends 10 months from the election and a year from inauguation.

Under that system, any sitting president would be a lame duck almost his entire final year.

But it's a clever enough tactic--always blame Democrats for their own self-destruction (and they are good at it) than hold your own politicians responsible for their bad behavior.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.


There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.

There was no nominee to consider.

The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.

Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.
Many of Biden's words echo the state of Washington today:

"Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the (Clarence) Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process, and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best."
He noted that among the previous seven nominations, two were not confirmed and two passed with strong opposition.

"In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Biden said if Bush were to nominate someone anyway, "the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."

Based on Biden's words, it appears he would not have objected to Bush nominating someone the day after election day. It would have given the Senate more than two and a half months to vote on confirmation.

Jinx 2 said:

---

This is not a conversation we should be having about an appointee to the highest court in the land.

That tantrum Kavanaugh threw made the hair on the back of my neck stand on end. A friend is married to a high-functioning alcholic, and she was upset because she recognized the defensive and abusive tone he took with Sen. Amuy Kobachar. I don't think he would have snarled "I like beer. Do you like beer, Senator?" at a man of either party.

That hearing shredded what was left of SCOTUS's legitimacy following the Merrick Garland stonewall. People need to have faith in the democratic system and the objectivity of the justice system, and the Republicans have undermined BOTH of those foundations. Shame on them.

---

The man was falsely accused of rape... and you think he shouldn't have been upset??
You're an idiot.