Kavanaugh SCOTUS Senate Judicial Hearing

[thilanliyan]

Is it fair to deny Kavanaugh over this un-proven allegation? Even disregarding that the allegation is not proven, let's say for argument's sake that he did this to Ford as a drunken teenager 35 years ago. If he has had a feckless record since and done nothing of the sort throughout his adult life, how long should we punish him and keep him from a job he's well qualified for?

This ISN'T the only allegation though...

 

[Indus]

I wonder how many other jobs lower than the Supreme Court you can't get if you drunkenly attempted to rape someone as a teenager.

I bet a lot.

All that matters to him is scotus so they can steal elections for the next 4 decades just like bush v. gore.

 

[IronWing]

Here we go again, can't even keep a straight face. Your friend said that the Senate cannot get a subpoena! I said they could, and told him. He came back and said the minority couldn't. Well no F'ing shit sherlock. I also stated that the minority leader could have sent it to the majority, at the time of receiving the letter. You MOVED the goalposts.

Gosh, you're dumb and dishonest.

 

[jackstar7]

Whitehouse just doubled-down on his boofed and devil's triangle schtick....what a fucking moron.

Yeah, I mean what does the truth matter when it comes to a judge?

 

[SlowSpyder]

I wonder how many other jobs lower than the Supreme Court you can't get if you drunkenly attempted to rape someone as a teenager.

I bet a lot.

You can even probably be a Democrat president if you rape someone.

 

[Zstream]

I wonder how many other jobs lower than the Supreme Court you can't get if you drunkenly attempted to rape someone as a teenager.

I bet a lot.

You're a habitual liar, like many on this board. GO TEAM GO, right?

 

[IronWing]

You're a habitual liar, like many on this board. GO TEAM GO, right?

Your mirror works anyway.

 

[ecogen]

Here we go again, can't even keep a straight face. Your friend said that the Senate cannot get a subpoena! I said they could, and told him. He came back and said the minority couldn't. Well no F'ing shit sherlock. I also stated that the minority leader could have sent it to the majority, at the time of receiving the letter. You MOVED the goalposts.

It's kinda sad that you're probably not a troll and actually believe the bullshit you're typing.

 

[Zstream]

Gosh, you're dumb and dishonest.

Where was the dishonesty? SHOW IT, BACK IT UP!!

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Nice deflection for someone with only a handful of neurons to work with.

In P&N you must add your own commentary to every post you make.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[ewdotson]

Your friend said that the Senate cannot get a subpoena!

He said no such thing. The actual exchange was his saying, "They didn't investigate it because they lack subpoena power" in direct response to your asking "Why didn't the Senate minority committee investigators, investigate the situation?"

 

[Jhhnn]

Is it fair to deny Kavanaugh over this un-proven allegation? Even disregarding that the allegation is not proven, let's say for argument's sake that he did this to Ford as a drunken teenager 35 years ago. If he has had a feckless record since and done nothing of the sort throughout his adult life, how long should we punish him and keep him from a job he's well qualified for?

It's fair to deny him over the absolute shit show of his opening statement. He's not SCOTUS material & anybody who thinks he is has been blinded by partisanship. If you believe he's capable of fair judgement in the matters of the SCOTUS you're out of your mind.

 

[fskimospy]

Here we go again, can't even keep a straight face. Your friend said that the Senate cannot get a subpoena! I said they could, and told him. He came back and said the minority couldn't. Well no F'ing shit sherlock. I also stated that the minority leader could have sent it to the majority, at the time of receiving the letter. You MOVED the goalposts.

False.

Your original statement:

You want to honestly debate this? Let's do it, no partisan bullshit. Why didn't the Senate minority committee investigators, investigate the situation? Once any sort of credible evidence is found, the report it like they do all whistleblowers? Answer me those two questions, and I MIGHT be persuaded towards your opinion. From ALL details, read, and watched, it wasn't done because of "insert something here".

My response:

They didn't investigate it because they lack subpoena power and therefore could not compel testimony from those who didn't want to give it. (ie: Mark Judge)

Your response to that:

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. They have the power to do that. Again, lets have an honest debate.

Your question was why the minority committee investigators did not investigate. My response was that they (the minority committee investigators) lacked subpoena power. This is unambiguously true and is a direct response to your question. You said I had no idea what I'm talking about and they had the power to do that. This is unambiguously false yet you have repeatedly refused to admit you made a false statement.

You appear to be arguing about what you WISH you and I said as opposed to what we ACTUALLY said. Now will you concede that you were wrong?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You need commentary or you'll be infracted...maybe.

Your previous 4 "mod call out" infractions leave little doubt as to your intention here.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[Zstream]

He said no such thing. The actual exchange was his saying, "They didn't investigate it because they lack subpoena power" in direct response to your asking "Why didn't the Senate minority committee investigators, investigate the situation?"

WTF are you talking about? READ WHAT YOU JUST TYPED... SLOWLYYY!

 

[SlowSpyder]

It's fair to deny him over the absolute shit show of his opening statement. He's not SCOTUS material & anybody who thinks he is has been blinded by partisanship. If you believe he's capable of fair judgement in the matters of the SCOTUS you're out of your mind.

I watched a lot of the questioning, I think he's fine. If Ginsberg can do it, I'm sure he can. Of course, this is the same crowd that said Trump wouldn't win, Trump isn't fit for office and have to pretend like things are bad today under his leadership to justify their emotional position. Dems are evangelical these days, not logical people.

 

[zinfamous]

OK, I'm done with you. You don't want to chat honestly, and few on this board want to as well. It's sad, you can review the quotes, and replies, and clearly show you're unwilling to engage in an honest debate.

You didn't like that it was shown how you were demonstrably wrong about the central premise of your entire argument--that the dems have no subpoena power--so you just take your ball home, claim that your opponent is not being fair, and still claim moral superiority?

You are useless.

 

[jackstar7]

Where was the dishonesty? SHOW IT, BACK IT UP!!

You sound like Kav.

 

[fskimospy]

WTF are you talking about? READ WHAT YOU JUST TYPED... SLOWLYYY!

You may want to stop digging right about now, haha.

 

[zinfamous]

WTF are you talking about? READ WHAT YOU JUST TYPED... SLOWLYYY!

they have no power to call important witnesses to testify. That is exactly how this works.

They would absolutely subpoena Mark Judge in a heartbeat, but they can't. The one guy that could likely clear this all up, and the Pubs want nothing to do with him.

Why is that? Seriously, ask yourself this. Why don't the Pubs want to ask these very important questions to this very important person?

 

[Zstream]

False.
Your question was why the minority committee investigators did not investigate. My response was that they (the minority committee investigators) lacked subpoena power. This is unambiguously true and is a direct response to your question. You said I had no idea what I'm talking about and they had the power to do that. This is unambiguously false yet you have repeatedly refused to admit you made a false statement.

Where in your quote did you say that? Where in your quote did you recognize that they COULDN'T ask the majority leader? Why don't you admit that they could have asked for one when they received the letter?

 

[ecogen]

Where in your quote did you say that? Where in your quote did you recognize that they COULDN'T ask the majority leader? Why don't you admit that they could have asked for one when they received the letter?

And you know that they didn't ask how exactly?

 

[Maxima1]

Is it fair to deny Kavanaugh over this un-proven allegation? Even disregarding that the allegation is not proven, let's say for argument's sake that he did this to Ford as a drunken teenager 35 years ago.

If there's a 50/50 chance of someone being a murderer, rapist, molester, etc. (i.e. not necessarily meeting "beyond a reasonable doubt"), would you go ahead and confirm them anyway? It's not a criminal trial, so the high standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal trial is irrelevant. Moreover, this is considering it's at 50/50 (Flake himself said as much certainty as there is doubt) with just a sham investigation. If a real investigation happened, it would definitely be more clarifying. Why don't you ponder why both Kavanaugh & the GOP don't want one? It's obvious why.

If he has had a feckless record since and done nothing of the sort throughout his adult life, how long should we punish him and keep him from a job he's well qualified for?

So why do you assholes support stripping voting rights of felons, even after they have served their time (and for less shit potentially than what Kavanaugh is accused of)?

 

[soundforbjt]

Whitehouse just doubled-down on his boofed and devil's triangle schtick....what a fucking moron.

Please tell me how asking Judge if he farted yet is normal, even as a joke? Haven't most people farted before high school?
Have you googled boofing? Who's the real moron here?

 

[Commodus]

You had sitting senators actually attempting to smear Kavanaugh for comments written in a yearbook when he was 16 years old....imagining evil intent with phrases like FFFFFFFourth of July, boofed, devil's triangle, etc. Give me a fucking break. This is about the most pathetic thing I've ever witnessed from politicians and you sit there and rationalize this kind of horseshit. Doesn't surprise me one bit. Fucking brain dead hacks.

I'm not rationalizing that. I'm saying that an honest, clearly traumatized victim of attempted rape was willing to brave death threats and hours of brutal questioning to get out her version of the story, while Kavanaugh has already been proven a habitual liar. As scrounging as the Democrats' tactics may have been, they have the moral superiority here.

 

[zinfamous]

Rationality ended when we started legitimizing defamation when it's done against Republicans.

"Bengazi-gate."

Oh, you thought you were being honest?

K.