3 hours ago, blazes said:

 

As they say in LoS: som nam na, or "what goes around comes around".

Sure the GOP did that to Garland, and apart from the abortion debate and the (presumed) women's vote (women's rights and all that), the Dems are doing exactly what was done to them.  I couldn't care less either way, but I am pleased to see that you are (by raising the Garland issue) confirming my view that this is all "political".

 

Like me, and ALL the other contributors to this particular thread, you have no idea what the Truth is in this squalid matter.  All we are doing is confirming our own biases the moment we hit "return".

 

 

Your false equivalency is not going to cut it with me. 

Kavanaugh is only in the trouble he is now because someone came forward with a serious allegation of sexual assault. Otherwise, despite the Dems protestations and best efforts to block, he would have been confirmed by now. 

In contrast, when Garland was put forward, the Republicans literally threw their toys out of the pram and refused to even discuss never mind vote on it. 

Its political in as much as it involves politicians but that’s were the similarity ends. I genuinely think the Dems think this guy is not only emotionally unqualified for the job but with his right wing/Christian views and habit of pandering to whoever helps his career, a real danger to hard fought American laws and values. 

The Republicans on the other hand don’t give a damn and after 8 years of blocking everything Obama tried to do and generally playing dirty politics for their own benefit are now crying crocodile tears and blaming the Dems for a problem of their own making. 

If it was purely political, why haven’t the Republicans simply dropped Kavanaugh and gone for someone else? It would have been easier and it would still be their guy taking the top job. 

No. It’s because Trump wants HIS guy Kavanaugh in the job so he can let him off when all the dodgy dealings and questionable ethics finally catch up with him. And a grateful Kavanaugh will do exactly that. 

2 hours ago, lovelomsak said:

What really gets me is he was found not quilty of charges but people will not accept that. If it had gone the other way would people have still protested who believed him. Women rights groups have to back off. Win some lose some. Some women lie. Memory is bad etc. 

  A man always is quilty in women's eyes no matter what the out come is. Grow up ladies you are not the perfect sex with no faults .

So apart from your obvious issues with women (don’t worry, times a great healer) he hasnt been found guilty because he isn’t on trial. The FBI are investigating some serious accusations from Dr. Ford but to date, there have been no charges and therefore nothing to be found guilty or not guilty of.

So far it’s just a job interview and like all job interviews, temperament has to be taken into consideration and I agree with many posters here that his last performance clearly demonstrated a temperament not in keeping with the Requirements of a Supreme Court judge. He is also obviously politically biased as he clearly thinks this is a Dem campaign and said so on his opening statement. 

The idea of “did he/didn’t he?” Is almost irrelevant; the guy doesn’t have what it takes emotionally to handle the job. 

5 hours ago, blazes said:

Since all the Dem senators, immediately the nomination was announced in July, vowed they would not vote for Judge K, it is quite clear that the whole thing was to be political from beginning to end.  This woman who testified about her false memory is just a pawn flung to the rabid #Metoo tribe to satisfy their lust for blood.  

It has all been about abortion and (of course) hatred of Trump.  

That’s a bit rich. Putting the “did he/didn’t he” aside for a minute I find it fantastically hypocritical when individuals like yourself call this “political” and “orchestrated by the evil Dems” when the Republicans did even worse with Merrick Garland. With 10 months left in office, Obama’s perfectly reasonable nomination; a moderate with no accusation of any impropriety whatsoever was treated 20 times worse than this idiot. Republicans wouldn’t even give him a hearing never mind a vote. Like a petulant child they just flat out refused to even discuss the matter. 

So when you’re whining on that it’s all just “political” and the dems fault, just remember they are asking 

for an investigation into a claim of sexual assault, which is absolutely right when considering a lifetime nomination for the highest court in the land. And at least they are giving much more consideration than Republicans ever gave Garland. 

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

To be fair he has worked very hard and is now under attack. Half the country is against him and his name is being smeared. I would be angry, I would be emotional about this.

Yeah but you’re not up for a job on the Supreme Court (I’m guessing). 

With such an important job isn’t temperament important? Isn’t being able to handle pressure a prerequisite? He did neither in my opinion and as much as we may personally relate to his situation and think “I’d be angry”, I expect more composure from these people. 

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

What evidence or testimony brought you to the conclusion that she is credible?

I think her demeanor was stable, focused and plausible in direct contrast to the man-child K who whinged, cried, got angry in equal measures. He didn’t look stable at all and certainly not stable enough for the highest court in the land. 

My thoughts are irrelevant though. There’s an FBI investigation (her request not his) that will hopefully throw more light on the whole sorry mess. 

If he is exonerated then fine. But I still feel he hasn’t shown the right temperament for the job. 

10 hours ago, lovelomsak said:

Is that not stating the obvious. 

  I think the sexual assaults and harrassment are playing themselves out they had a good run now lets get real.

  Women have played this card to often for it to mean any thing any more. It has wore  thin the credibility of the accusations. Can only cry wolf so lone and people will quit listening.

 Sexual harrassment is used way to often to destroy men and always it seems for political reasons, not justice.

  In Kavanagh cases it is so obvious a witch hunt with  it is sickening. Teenagers decades ago get real Democrats and start thinking about your country instead of your party.

   

Can you please show us on this doll where the nasty woman touched you?

1 hour ago, Gecko123 said:

Hawaii's Senator Mazie Hirono has been heroically vocal in speaking out about the unfairness of this proceeding. She is the one who articulated that Kavanaugh is an "outcome driven" judge. Forget about the "strict constitutionalist" vs "judges who use the law to legislate" ways to categorize judges.

 

Kavanaugh is an extremely politically connected (Starr investigation, worked in the Bush White House, Federalist Society darling.) This guy has a fine legal mind, but views the law as something which can be used in order to get it to do what you want it to do. He has become skilled in using the law to accommodate the interests of the powers that be, and thus endeared and ingratiated himself to those whose interests are served.  In other words, once he knows the outcome he wants, he is clever about promulgating legal arguments which support that outcome.

 

I don't sense this guy has the ability to empathize with average Americans. His strong suit seems to be the ability to make adroit legal reasonings which have endeared and ingratiated himself into the graces of the Republican elite who have in turn groomed him for career advancement. But whether you're talking about abortion rights, civil rights, immigration, prisoner rights, corporate interests vs individual interests, campaign finance reform, gun rights, or environmental protection, how an 'average Joe' TVF member thinks putting this guy on the Supreme Court is in their best interests boggles my mind. You think this guy is going to look out for your interests? Unless you're in the top 10%, I think this guy is going to be looking after interests far far above your pay grade. But while it lasts, enjoy the illusion that your interests are being served by putting him on the court.

An excellent summary of why this man should never be appointed.

He is obviously a political appointee to a role that should in itself be free of politics but is increasingly seen as another way of pushing a right wing agenda through interpretation of the law. 

It's no coincidence that Trump and his cronies are trying their very best to get this man in as everyone in Washington now sees the supreme court as an uncontested route to their political leanings which in this case is right-wing christian ideology.

2 hours ago, Tug said:

Are the trump supporters really that stupid?It is obvious to all it’s a deflection no wonder the world laughs at us guess it’s better than war hopefully we will be relived of this disaster soon

The simple answer is yes. 

They simply won't listen to anything resembling a sensible argument as to them, their Cheeto in Chief can do no wrong.

This is obviously another deflection, made all the more obvious when you consider how little he had to say about PROVEN Russian interference. The hypocrisy is astounding.  

59 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

Snakebites produce findings mimicking compartment syndrome that are rarely indicative of actual compartment syndrome. Myonecrosis results from venom toxicity rather than elevated compartment pressures. Fasciotomy does not prevent, and may worsen, necrosis. In some cases with elevated compartment pressures, treatment with antivenom and without fasciotomy was successful. No available evidence indicates when fasciotomy should be performed in the management of snakebites. If considered, fasciotomy should not be performed without first documenting elevated compartment pressure.

American College of Medical Toxicology and The American Academy of Clinical Toxicology

What he said

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

And if they win, then what?

 

The Leavers will demand another vote as it is their democratic right too.

 

So what will it be?

 

2 from 3, 3 from 4 or 5, the first one to have 2 or 3 clear votes in a row?

 

Will voting be compulsory?

 

Nobody from the Remain side who are the ones calling for a second vote have come up with any ideas on what or how to do it.

 

Who will frame the question (s)?

What will be the pass mark? 50%, 60%, 2/3, 75%?

What happens if neither side makes the cut?

Who will pay for all these votes?

 

If it is a referendum will it be mandatory or advisory?

 

That isn't democracy, that is madness.

You certainly have a point but I think the common (and sensible) conclusion is people did not really know what they were voting for through the disinformation and downright lies heaped on by both sides. 

2 years ago did anyone hear about a 'hard/soft' Northern island border?  The issues with trade and tariffs or the rights of EU migrants and Brits living abroad?

The electorate are far better informed now and once a final deal (or no deal) has been reached it should be that deal that then goes to a referendum with the full knowledge of 'this is what Brexit actually means'.

It's too important a decision not to do it this way and yes, if you want you can set certain criteria such as a certain percentage have to vote (say 75%) and the decision is ultimately binding. Then there would be no excuses then and ALL parties have to live with the result.   

With so many polls now predicting a swing to 60% in favour of remaining in the EU (now that more people understand the consequences of Brexit) then a new referendum needs to be addressed. 

I know so many people who originally voted for Brexit who now, armed with much more information than 2 years ago, would choose to remain. 

The difference in numbers was so close the last time (approx. 1 million people) you have to say it was too close a call on such an important issue. If those in favour of Brexit are so confident it was 'the will of the people' then they have nothing to fear in another referendum.

And no it won't undermine democracy and it certainly won't lead to a 'dictatorship'. That's just scaremongering nonsense.   

1 minute ago, mcambl61 said:

sorry Johnny boy, but you constantly berate those who do not agree with you, you can pretend you don't, it does not really matter.

you can pretend those are not insults if it makes your false sense of superiority even bigger.

just keep up the breathless emotional posturing you have plenty of company here.

 

Examples please. Simply show me an example of my 'constant berating'. I think it's more to do with how you handle matters. You perceive it as berating when all I'm doing is stating facts that you can't counter. The fault lies with you.

5 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

so Hillary's assistants were afforded immunity by the FBI leadership that wanted her to

win the election, no conflict of interests at all...?

Destroyed evidence under subpoena, no problem, the FBI is with her!

 

no subversion going on here at all

 

 

 

All of these have been answered with FACTS in previous posts.

Your misguided opinion and barely concealed zeal for a good conspiracy doesn't make it any less fictitious.

Please try and get another record to play. This one is getting boring.  

1 hour ago, Boon Mee said:

Obviously the man's character is beyond reproduce and should be confirmed forthwith. 

Man who can't spell the word 'reproach' asks that his political viewpoint be taken seriously. 

10 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

so yeah, destroying evidence under subpoena, yes you are delusional.

the FBI allowing 5 people immunity with nothing in return and no testimony under oath

yeah you are delusional

Comey is quoted as saying that granting immunity deals was a much faster way to gather evidence as the alternative was to get a grand jury to subpoena the laptop, which he said could have ignited a years long legal fight because Mills was also acting as Hillary’s attorney. 

“The FBI judgment was we need to get to that laptop. We need to see what it is,” he said. “This investigation’s been going on for a year. And this was, in the negotiation, a tool that her lawyer asked for, that the Department of Justice granted so we could get the laptop.”

“The department granted immunity to the one fellow who erased the stuff so that we could figure out, did anybody tell you to do this, did anybody ask you do this, to see if we could make an obstruction case — we couldn’t,” he said.

They were granted immunity so they would be free to testify against Hillary and not purger themselves. Even though the immunity deal was to get something on Hillary, they still couldn't find enough information to prosecute her for anything other than being careless.

To be honest, Hillary's emails have been done to death and although it doesn't fit with your 'deep-state' conspiracy mumbo jumbo we are actually talking about Trump and his attempts to scupper an on-going investigation.

That's the story now so please stop trying to deflect and obstigate from the very real fact that Mueller is far more successful in catching Trumps crooked inner circle than anyone (despite all their considerable efforts) has ever been with trying to catch Hillary out.