He would get some shit for voting yes, which I doubt he will as he has the Gorsuch vote to pander out to righties. The democratic base would not leave him over this...no way they vote for Braun. Ever.
The Kavanaugh debate has come unhinged
- Thread starter Rockfish1
- Start date
He would get some shit for voting yes, which I doubt he will as he has the Gorsuch vote to pander out to righties. The democratic base would not leave him over this...no way they vote for Braun. Ever.
Wait...who is Schumer’s puppet? Donelly votes with Trump 55% of the time. You consider him Schumer’s puppet? So what do you call the entire Republican Party, who votes with Trump nearly lockstep? That was a really silly comment.
I had deleted it to try and play nicer while you were apparently commenting. I will refrain from posting for the rest of the day because I am not in a mood to play nice with y'all today.
You said to see you in November in one of the other threads...and I will see you there. I will be one of the people voting against Ol' vote with the R's when we are going to lose anyway Joe but stick with the D's when it matters. And unlike you, I will not go so far as to make a stupid sweeping statement about my gender being in lock step, but for me, I will do everything in my power to defeat people who think like you this November. And I would like to thank you and the Democrats for again reminding me why I have to do this even though I think Braun is a stick in the mud. Voting can be a hassle and I had a meh candidate...but sitting it out is not something we can do because if we do my children are potentially left with the lunatic world people like you want to create where the standards this country is built on are tossed on their ear.
No, not in the mood today. So I will say to go enjoy fall in Bloomington, it is a great place to experience it. Go Hoosiers, beat Rutgers, and good day. (And since I am heading out and will not see your inevitable response.....I said good day.)
So you go on an emotional rant because I cited statistics proving you wrong in your declaration that Donelly is Schumer’s puppet? That’s a little bizarre and very Kavanaughish of you.
Yeah, I mean I know tons of Dems that have a hard time voting for Donnelly because he sides with Republicans on so many things. And them to get called Schumer’s puppet is pretty hilarious, besides very wrong. Surprisingly enough, it appears he didn’t want to get called out on the facts today and went on a little temper tantrum.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/09/kavanaugh-judge-prep-school-parties.html
Here’s an interesting article about the culture at some of the nearby schools.
Here’s an interesting article about the culture at some of the nearby schools.
Van, please read this carefully.
When Scalia died, the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee declared they would not consider any nominee made by Obama. McConnell endorsed and confirmed this approach. Orrin Hatch defended this strategy by saying that there is no way Obama would appoint an acceptable moderate, but would instead appoint an extreme liberal that would fire up his base for the election. The example of an acceptable moderate cited by Hatch? Merrick Garland.
By the very words of the Senate Republicans you are defending, Merrick Garland was, in fact, a moderate, and the GOP had decided that they would never consider any nominee from Obama, no matter how moderate he was.
Now, Van, think about all that. Click the links. Mull it over. Are you capable of admitting that you were just flat out wrong in this thread? Can you do that?
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
To be honest it is hard sometimes to decipher what is true and what is false even when it is written. People have written that Ford was courageous. She never looked courageous to me. Merrick Garland because of his judicial philosophy is not a moderate. He is a leftist activist judge. He has no business being on the court. Is it possible since the Republicans knew the type of judge Obama would promote the Republicans said this? Is it even possible?
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
There is far more evidence Kavanaugh is innocent than there is that he is guilty. Ford could not remember anything that could be corroborated. It is in the record. She couldn't say who drove her to the party and who drove her home. Does this make any sense to you? Remember she was not raped according to her testimony. It was just attempted. She was able to fend off two older boys and then went downstairs. Somebody drove her home, but she just can't remember.
I pray, if any of your congregants come to you for post-sexual assault counseling, that you refer them to a qualified lay person. You have neither the empathy, nor the willingness to listen. You would make the situation worse with your entitled stupidity.
You could have just said, "No, I'm not capable of admitting I was wrong."
Can you explain why you don’t find Dr. Ford courageous? And do you find Kavanaugh courageous?
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
Bottom line a guy named Allen on a comment board about the SNL Kavanaugh skit made these observations. I would like you and any other lawyer to poke holes in it.
Interesting.....But her story is also growing less believable by the day. Here are eight reasons why it’s hardly “anti-woman” for senators to question her account at Thursday’s hearing: 1) For starters, Ford still can’t recall basic details of what she says was the most traumatic event in her life. Not where the “assault” took place — she’s not sure whose house it was, or even what street it was on. Nor when — she’s not even sure of the year, let alone the day and month. Ford’s not certain how old she was or what grade she was in when she says an older student violently molested her. (But she doesn’t plead inebriation: She described having just “one beer” at the party.) 2) Ford concedes she told no one what happened to her at the time, not even her best friend or mother. That means she can rely on no contemporaneous witness to corroborate her story. 3) Worse, the four other people she identified as attending the party, including Kavanaugh, all deny knowledge of the gathering in question, including Leland Ingham Keyser, who she calls a “lifelong friend.” Keyser’s lawyer told the Senate Judiciary Committee: “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with or without Dr. Ford.” The other two potential witnesses — Mark Judge and Patrick “P.J.” Smyth — also deny any recollection of attending such a party. The committee took their sworn statements “under penalty of perjury.” “These witnesses directly contradict Professor Ford’s allegations against Judge Kavanaugh,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley advised Ford’s attorneys last week. Kavanaugh's accuser offers Senate 4 people to corroborate claims Second Kavanaugh accuser says she would testify at Senate hearing Why it was up to Trump to call bull on Kavanaugh allegations Democrats' 'investigation' calls are just code for delay Kavanaugh nomination vote rescheduled for Friday morning In her original letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Ford claimed that Kavanaugh talked to Keyser and Smyth right after he assaulted her. Yet neither shares her memory. This is, to say the least, highly problematic for her case. No witness corroborates any part of her story. 4) Her own immediate family doesn’t appear to be backing her up, either. Her mother, father and two siblings are all conspicuously absent from a letter of support released by a dozen relatives, mostly on her husband’s side of the family. The letter attests to her honesty and integrity. “Why didn’t her parents and brothers sign the letter?” a congressional source familiar with the investigation wondered. 5) This summer, Ford tried to reach out to old friends from high school and college to jog her memory. They couldn’t help her. “I’ve been trying to forget this all my life, and now I’m supposed to remember every little detail,” Ford complained to one friend in July, according to an account in The San Jose Mercury News. 6) Yet she still pushed forward with her bombshell charge, contacting The Washington Post tip line and Democratic lawmakers, while hiring a Democratic activist lawyer. Ford is also a Democrat, as well as an anti-Trump marcher, raising questions about the motive and timing of the allegations along with their veracity. 7) Ford contends that notes her therapist took in 2012 corroborate her account. But they don’t mention Kavanaugh. They also point up inconsistencies in her story. For instance, her shrink noted that Ford told her there were “four boys” in the bedroom, not two as she now says. The notes also indicate Ford said she was in her “late teens” when she was assaulted. But Ford now says she may have been only 15. 8) In another inconsistency, Ford told The Washington Post she was upset when Trump won in 2016, because Kavanaugh was mentioned as a Supreme Court pick. But Kavanaugh wasn’t added to Trump’s list of possibles until November 2017, a full year later. On top of all that, Kavanaugh “unequivocally denied Dr. Ford’s allegations .?.?. under penalty of perjury” during a Sept. 17 interview with committee lawyers, Grassley said, adding he was “forthright and emphatic in his testimony” and “fully answered all questions.” ================================================= SNL the kindergarten of tv
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
First, she did not want to come forward. She was outed by somebody in Feinstein's office who had her letter. You could tell by her reaction to getting summoned that she wanted no part of this spectacle. She acted very timid, almost childlike. Just watch her testimony for one thing. Does she appear to act like a college professor? Seriously what did you think of her speech and demeanor? In my view she appears to be a very troubled woman and it had nothing to do with Kavanaugh. Something happened to that woman. Perhaps she is a pawn of the left since she never wanted to appear?
Van, for at least the tenth time: find a freaking article and read about what trauma does to the brain. I’ve linked several and mentioned several books. And you continue to ignore and post the same moronic jibber jabber repeatedly.
As for her testimony, I found her very compelling and believable as did nearly everyone I’ve heard mention it, including Fox News anchors. I suppose her big words had you confused.
As for her testimony, I found her very compelling and believable as did nearly everyone I’ve heard mention it, including Fox News anchors. I suppose her big words had you confused.
Isn't this the same rationale you (or other like minded thinkers) have given us for why you had to vote for Trump? That level of nonsense has gotten us where we are today- the most corrupt regime in at least a century (I'm only 63)...
And you really think embracing fascism and white supremacy are the "standards this country is built on"? When your candidate is endorsed by the KKK and people outright calling for fascism (like Trump was) you probably need to tread lightly on claiming he represents "standards" this country was built on...
This post is a perfect example of the lengths that those with privilege will go to to try and retain that privilege. That's exactly what the "culture war" is all about. The powerful make the rules, until they lose that power.
Unless you have a picture of him not laying on top of her at the exact time that he was laying on top of her, it's not evidence at all.
One thing is for sure. Elections have consequences. You are correct. Both sides are corrupt. The Reps have the Senate and the Presidency for now. As a result they are doing what they are doing and ditto for the Dems. If the roles were reversed nothing would change but the names. The fact is that neither party gives a crap about Prof Ford, so called sexual assault, etc. If they did this would have been handled differently on both sides. The Dems wouldn't have sat on it and the Reps would have insisted on an investigation. Its just that simple. Prof Ford has been used and manipulated and that is horrible. Judge Kavanaugh has been assaulted in a far worse manner than Prof Ford is accusing him of doing. The bottom line is that this is politics as usual. Sad but true.
I just had an idea pop in my mind, I am not sure if it would be good or bad. AND before anyone, "only quotes the fact that I had a thought", I was not speaking to you so go back to your version of privilege!
What if BK publishes a legal opinion on the issues he finds himself in at the moment? Yes I know this is not a legal proceeding, but would there be any benefit to providing his ideas as to if this was a trial and it was not him in the defendants seat, yet he was a judge?
I am asking this, not as a biased objector to the current episode of our state of affairs, but as a matter of his actions between now and Friday if you where his counsel, on retainer, paid damn well and trying to win.
What if BK publishes a legal opinion on the issues he finds himself in at the moment? Yes I know this is not a legal proceeding, but would there be any benefit to providing his ideas as to if this was a trial and it was not him in the defendants seat, yet he was a judge?
I am asking this, not as a biased objector to the current episode of our state of affairs, but as a matter of his actions between now and Friday if you where his counsel, on retainer, paid damn well and trying to win.
None of these issues would even come close to seeing a courtroom. Basically nothing would be admissible.
That’s not the standard here of course because this isn’t a criminal or civil trial. But a lot of people (some here and a lot on social media) have alluded to how things would shake out in a trial.
I agree, but doesn't that mean that those pumping that this is critically important, are in fact saying that our burden of proof in a legal proceeding is totally irrelevant and shouldn't roll over to every day life? It seems to my very uneducated mined, that argument means its acceptable be totally on the majority of feelings and emotion to decide truth/ guilt, than beign able to actually prove it. But what do I know?
And it was just called to my attention, that my insistence that these women who are claiming being assaulted be forced to come forward, is the exact same as what Kamala did by leaking Dr. Fords story, but the left here are totally against holding them accountable to helping stop this crap. Are you with me or against me to stop this shit and make people pay?
Do you have a link to this claim regarding Senator Kamala Harris "leaking" Ford's story? My understanding is that she initially contacted her House Rep Anna Eshoo and also the anonymous WAPO tip line. Later Ford asked Eshoo to hand carry a letter to Feinstein, who like Eshoo then called Ford to evaluate the accuracy of her story...
It's pretty obvious it was reporters at the WAPO who pursued the story and eventually put 2 and 2 together. In her testimony, she mentioned reporters showing up in her class room and contacting her friends. Did you just type "Kamala" by mistake, or is this another example of the attempts by those on the Right to smear their latest boogeyman?
I now am covered by journalistic integrity and my source doesn't want to come forward. I may have, or may not have intended for this to be senator Kamala, you said that, I didn't.
Another allegation the FBI ignored.
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was hit with another accusation of unwanted sexual contact by a male classmate who said he witnessed Kavanaugh expose himself and press his genitals against a woman without her consent.
The New York Times reported Saturday that the latest allegation, which has until now not been public, was reported to the FBI during Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation process last year but was not investigated by the FBI.
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was hit with another accusation of unwanted sexual contact by a male classmate who said he witnessed Kavanaugh expose himself and press his genitals against a woman without her consent.
The New York Times reported Saturday that the latest allegation, which has until now not been public, was reported to the FBI during Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation process last year but was not investigated by the FBI.
Man, these stories keep coming out proving that the FBI is full of deep state democrats doing everything they can to help the political left.
I’d heard at the time there were multiple collaborative stories that the FBI was told not to look into. This just makes me ill.
Kavanaugh was a bad choice but instead of going with another candidate the Republicans blocked further inquiry into his background and pushed for a quick vote. Trump wanted Kavanaugh because he thought it would be a vote to protect him from impeachment, a very poor reason for appointing someone to the SC.
"The deep state" is laughable. Once again a term concocted by alt-right trolls and Russian farms along with "drain the swap," "Q-Anon," "lock her up," etc... The purpose for al this is to discredit public servants. The men and women who's lives are to protect and serve from actual threats. If there was truly a deep state against Donald Trump, Hillary's emails wouldn't have been investigated leading up to the 2016 election. You are being fooled by fringe outlets that prey on the weak and gullible.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/technology-43093390
https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.w...ow-the-2016-election-to-trump/?outputType=amp
Last edited:
Didn't the woman say she had no recollection that this incident occurred?
How would we know that? Doesn't the reporting say that this is a new allegation previously unknown? Are you confusing this with yet another claim against Kavanaugh?
