Republicans aim to confirm Kavanaugh this weekend after FBI report

[newnative]

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 .

     Where was he found not guilty?  It's still a she said/he said.  Doesn't make him not guilty--just makes his guilt or innocence not proven.  With his lying about other things, and the other people who have come forward, I think its more likely that Ford is telling the truth.  

[johnnybangkok]

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. 

[Gecko123]

He's now apologizing for his outbursts before the Judiciary committee, claiming he may have let his indignation about being wrongly accused get the better of him. And yet, where was that indignation when he refused over and over and over again to himself call for a full FBI investigation into these supposedly false allegations? And where was his voice when so many potential witnesses came forward to say that they weren't contacted by the FBI?

 

That he is so willing to go along with this sham investigation that was obviously just a political cover fig leaf for a handful of Republican senators and showed no sincere interest in getting to the bottom of Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnick's allegations, speaks volumes about his character and partisanship. If those allegations were as false as he claimed they were, he should have been standing on that sub-committee witness table screaming for a full investigation. That kind of passion and breach of decorum would have been most welcome.

[canuckamuck]

3 hours ago, helpisgood said:

 

Yeah, sure.

 

Sure, stuttering is always such a hot joke with kids from that age group, unlike sex and partying.  That's so obvious.  

 

Is Devil's Triangle a drinking game with three cups because that's so practical?  But, it's always four people?  What if a fifth drinking buddy is there?  Makes sense?  Or, are the glasses shaped like triangles?    By the way, look up "Devil's Threesome" from the link below.  And, it's menage a trois (sorry, can't add the proper French accent marks).  I guess you didn't bother to look that up either, as if French spelling cannot be tricky to non-French speakers.  That reveals a lack of caution.    

 

From some "creative journalism":    

 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Devil's_Triangle

 

Yes, besides the more well-known reference to a part of the Atlantic Ocean, it says that it's a synonym to "devil's threesome" which is sexual intercourse with two men and one woman (familiar situation for Kavanaugh and his buddies?).

 

So, sure I'll buy that and I'll take the Brooklyn Bridge along with it.  Geez, talk about being gullible.

 

Those without an axe to grind, unlike Brett's buddies or Fox News, will corroborate. 

How's this

Quote

Two men who went to college with one of Kavanaugh’s high-school classmates (and knew Kavanaugh socially as well in the ’80s and ’90s) say this classmate taught them a drinking game with that name. That classmate and three others write separately that they made up the game during their time at Georgetown Prep:

“Devil’s Triangle” was a drinking game we came up with in high school. It was a variation on the game “Quarters.” When we played “Devil’s Triangle,” four people sat at a table. On the table, three small glasses of beer were arranged next to one another to form a triangle. Each of the four participants took turns being the “shooter.” The shooter attempted to bounce a quarter into one of the glasses.

So, six people have now said publicly that they played a drinking game called Devil’s Triangle that originated at Kavanaugh’s high school. Time to retire that one.

Link

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by canuckamuck

[johnnybangkok]

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. 

[zydeco]

Quote

A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told FBI investigators that she felt pressured by Dr. Ford’s allies to revisit her initial statement that she knew nothing about an alleged sexual assault by a teenage Brett Kavanaugh, which she later updated to say that she believed but couldn’t corroborate Dr. Ford’s account, according to people familiar with the matter.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152

[earlinclaifornia]

9 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Yup, Kav is a done-deal. 

SCOTUS is now 5/4 ratio. 

It already was as Kennedy was also a conservative, or your not understanding that because he was not alway partisan in his decisions

[stevenl]

5 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

So someone can be accused of a crime, quite vaguely and with absolutely no corroborating evidence, and without ever being charged or convicted be punished because in your opinion they didn't keep a stiff upper lip and allowed their emotions to show?

 

What an interesting world we live in.

Strange conclusion.

There was much more wrong with his performance than showing emotions, it was his contempt for the senators and refusal to answer questions.

And what was again the reason he wasn't cleared or charged with a crime? The refusal to ask the FBI, until they were forced to, and by that time only a pro forma investigation.

 

He failed a job interview, or better anywhere else a performance like his would mean a fail. If not it shows a total lack of morality.

[helpisgood]

2 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

How's this

 

 

1.  You have completely ignored my first point about Kavanaugh's evasiveness in answering questions.  

 

2.  You have now completely ignored my point about Kavanaugh's lie about "FFFFFF" (or however many f's there were).  

 

3. Left clinging on to one last lame prep boy excuse, you now offer only a quote from Kavanaugh's buddies (CYA, boys!) and fellow Renate alums (we never did get into that slur, which may be more damning) from the National Review?  I know who they are and their agenda.  However, I'm sure Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. himself would have had enough common sense to roll his eyes at all of this.

 

Yeah, let's retire this one.

Edited October 5, 2018 by helpisgood
grammar

[canuckamuck]

16 minutes ago, helpisgood said:

 

1.  You have completely ignored my first point about Kavanaugh's evasiveness in answering questions.  

 

2.  You have now completely ignored my point about Kavanaugh's lie about "FFFFFF" (or however many f's there were).  

 

3. Left clinging on to one last lame prep boy excuse, you now offer only a quote from Kavanaugh's buddies (CYA, boys!) and fellow Renate alums (we never did get into that slur, which may be more damning) from the National Review?  I know who they are and their agenda.  However, I'm sure Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. himself would have had enough common sense to roll his eyes at all of this.

 

Yeah, let's retire this one.

1. Evasive is a word you use, perhaps you should try he was careful with his answers, considering the left lynch mob was hanging on his every word.

2. The whole yearbook is full of multiple F's on words beginning with F. It was some gag the students were in on. It's not just Kavanaugh. Perhaps you think the entire High school was full of predators. And even if it was a reference to Find em, F em and forget em. Isn't that a very high school thing to say? Didn't the boys in your school talk a lot of trash? 

3. Who would you ask about the drinking game? Surely the folks who played it would be the first choice.

 

Face it, you were led into a false narrative by the MSM because you wanted it to be true. Prepare to lose even more in November.

[attrayant]

20 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

1. Evasive is a word you use, perhaps you should try he was careful with his answers, considering the left lynch mob was hanging on his every word.

 

No, "evasive" is factually correct in this case.

 

[canuckamuck]

10 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

No, "evasive" is factually correct in this case.

 

It was a frame job, he was wise to say as little as possible.

Wisdom is a good quality in a judge.

[helpisgood]

40 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

1. Evasive is a word you use, perhaps you should try he was careful with his answers, considering the left lynch mob was hanging on his every word.

2. The whole yearbook is full of multiple F's on words beginning with F. It was some gag the students were in on. It's not just Kavanaugh. Perhaps you think the entire High school was full of predators. And even if it was a reference to Find em, F em and forget em. Isn't that a very high school thing to say? Didn't the boys in your school talk a lot of trash? 

3. Who would you ask about the drinking game? Surely the folks who played it would be the first choice.

 

Face it, you were led into a false narrative by the MSM because you wanted it to be true. Prepare to lose even more in November.

1.  "[L]eft lynch mob"?  Really?  Now, you are showing your true colors.  Tribal "my-team-agst.-your team" conspiratorial thinking.  "Who's Socrates?"  

2.  To answer both of your questions: No.  We called those very few people "idiots."

3.  Go ask any of the others in your fantasy bubble.  National Review?  Hilarious!  You know that Buckley went to Yale?  How about instead using simple common sense?

 

You have assumed that I rely on the MSM.  False.  Of course, that's what your tribal leaders have told you to say to the "left lynch mob," right?  So, is there a "right lynch mob"?  I'll ask someone from the right wing or the left wing.  Maybe they understand public affairs better.  

[KMartinHandyman]

51 yes for cloture. Will be confirmed if votes repeat on Saturday.

[beechguy]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Strange conclusion.

There was much more wrong with his performance than showing emotions, it was his contempt for the senators and refusal to answer questions.

And what was again the reason he wasn't cleared or charged with a crime? The refusal to ask the FBI, until they were forced to, and by that time only a pro forma investigation.

 

He failed a job interview, or better anywhere else a performance like his would mean a fail. If not it shows a total lack of morality.

I can't fault the guy for the contempt of the Senators, half a dozen of those on that committee aren't good enough to carry his briefcase. I really enjoy the lecture on ethics and integrity from the Democrats and their supporters, it's the most comical thing I've seen the past few weeks.

[Becker]

5 minutes ago, beechguy said:

I really enjoy the lecture on ethics and integrity from the Democrats and their supporters, it's the most comical thing I've seen the past few weeks.

LOL! Gotta love it when one of the base man-child supporters starts accusing his opponents of lacking "ethics and morality". 

The hypocrisy is epic! 

[KMartinHandyman]

Should we investigate how the GOP shamelessly blocked a candidate nominated by President Obama and when the Dems have legitimate concerns about the candidate nominated by the man-child they all cry like a bunch of ****** as well? 
 
PS. Who has suggested we introduce new standards or do you actually believe not being a partisan liar is a new standard? 

Shamelessly under the Biden rule but you knew that. Joe set the precedent and Harry Reid gave us the nuclear option, changing the senate voting to a simple majority which gave us the easy path to President Trumps first two conservative Supreme Court justices and hopefully he can appoint one more for good measure before too long.
Thank you Harry Reid!

[Scott]

Off-topic post and replies removed. 

 

[bendejo]

3 hours ago, Becker said:

LOL! Gotta love it when one of the base man-child supporters starts accusing his opponents of lacking "ethics and morality". 

The hypocrisy is epic! 

 

At a DT love fest the other night, the crowd was chanting "lock her up" but this time for Ford.

The same crowd later cheered when DT was whining about how "guilty until proven innocent" was a bad thing.

 

Where to begin having an intelligent discussion with them?  In the words of Shakira, it's like reading a poem to a horse.

 

 

[moontang]

The way the false accusations are getting so ridiculous; locking them up would be long overdue.  It is pure defamation.

[Chomper Higgot]

9 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

It was a frame job, he was wise to say as little as possible.

Wisdom is a good quality in a judge.

It was an examination of the candidate, part of the Senate’s process to review and approve candidates to the SCOTUS.

 

As mandated by the Constitution.

[Nyezhov]

6 hours ago, bendejo said:

Where to begin having an intelligent discussion with them?  In the words of Shakira, it's like reading a poem to a horse.

 

1. Never underestimate your opponent

2. Never be afraid to discuss anything with anybody, you may learn something. Even a brief discussion is better than no discussion.

3. Never lump everybody into one category. Everyone is different.

[SpokaneAl]

 
It's what DT calls transparency.
 

FBI background investigation results have never been released to the public.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[bendejo]

15 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

1. Never underestimate your opponent

2. Never be afraid to discuss anything with anybody, you may learn something. Even a brief discussion is better than no discussion.

3. Never lump everybody into one category. Everyone is different.

 

4. Never believe a stranger on the internet

 

[KMartinHandyman]

 
4. Never believe a stranger on the internet
 

I can’t believe this!

[Nyezhov]

53 minutes ago, KMartinHandyman said:

I can’t believe this!

and I cant believe that!

[Morch]

14 hours ago, beechguy said:

I can't fault the guy for the contempt of the Senators, half a dozen of those on that committee aren't good enough to carry his briefcase. I really enjoy the lecture on ethics and integrity from the Democrats and their supporters, it's the most comical thing I've seen the past few weeks.

 

Allow me to doubt you'd have any issues faulting such behavior if the candidate was nominated by or affiliated with the "other side". Then it would have been faux righteous indignation time.

[Nyezhov]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Allow me to doubt you'd have any issues faulting such behavior if the candidate was nominated by or affiliated with the "other side". Then it would have been faux righteous indignation time.

Well a couple of the Dems did embarrass themselves..... ????

 

But Flake is a flake too.....and Lisa? Id respect her decision more ifin I didnt know she has been bought and paid for by the Alaska Natives.

[beechguy]

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 12:32 AM, Morch said:

 

Allow me to doubt you'd have any issues faulting such behavior if the candidate was nominated by or affiliated with the "other side". Then it would have been faux righteous indignation time.

The only person you should doubt, is guy you look at in the mirror.

I believe in being fair as possible, and there are several Republicans I would be happy to see go. Until they showed themselves to have a spine, Graham and McConnell were near the top of the list. But the BS the Democrats have tried to push the past ten years is ridiculous, and as long as the likes of Schumer, Booker, etc. are in office, there is no way I'll vote to give them more leverage. 

[Morch]

9 hours ago, beechguy said:

The only person you should doubt, is guy you look at in the mirror.

I believe in being fair as possible, and there are several Republicans I would be happy to see go. Until they showed themselves to have a spine, Graham and McConnell were near the top of the list. But the BS the Democrats have tried to push the past ten years is ridiculous, and as long as the likes of Schumer, Booker, etc. are in office, there is no way I'll vote to give them more leverage. 

 

The guy in the mirror doesn't spew unverified nonsense about his political views, or claims as to what he would have. He did miss that spot shaving, though, again.