The Kavanaugh debate has come unhinged
- Thread starter Rockfish1
- Start date
I don’t think this was a NYT Opinion piece, either. Could be wrong on that, but I didn’t believe it was which is why it’s so egregious.
Lol. Right, the times doesn’t suck. They know exactly what they’re doing.
This wasn’t an honest mistake, Goat. Even you can see that. They ran with a story that they KNEW had no credibility. They published what they KNEW was incorrect.
You can chalk that up to a mistake if you want to. For my part, I would expect “one of the best sources of journalism in America” to be a little better than that.
Yes the NYT screwed up on that. And that’s a story. The bigger story is that the FBI wasn’t allowed to do a full investigation and there were witnesses to the allegation. And we have someone who lied under oath, making important decisions for the rest of his life.
Give it a rest. Kavanaugh has had 7 FBI background investigations in his career and none of this stuff comes up-until he is on the verge of becoming a Supreme and might not vote the way liberals want him. Dems begged for an FBI investigation, Jeff Flake granted it, nothing comes up, so lets keep investigating until we find something.
Yup. This wasn’t an opinion piece. They are pawning this off as real journalism. Things like this just fuels the #fakenews comments by Trump. They’re literally bringing it on themselves.
The good news is I think the Kavanaugh issue is one the Republicans win. I hope they keep pushing impeaching him.
Even Blasey-Ford's attorney came out and said her client was motivated by politics. She wants an asterisk by Kavanugh's name if/when he makes rulings on Roe v Wade. Stupid thing for an attorney to say.
You obviously didn’t read the story. The FBI was not allowed to investigate the witness list they were given. Give it a rest? Lol. You may be fine with having not one, but two sexual abusers and liars on the Supreme Court, but I’m not. And my guess is most women aren’t. Give it a rest? Lol. Not likely.
Washington Examiner: New Kavanaugh book says seven people back up Deborah Ramirez allegation. Who are they?
They go thru the seven people and as you look into the claim it falls apart.
I don't feel as sorry for so-called conservatives as I do we beer guzzling males when stories about Kavanaugh's alleged indiscretions are bandied about.
Kavanaugh has officially declared that he likes beer. This makes him one of us.
Thus when ladies hear about about an Ivy Leaguer exposing and forcing himself upon females they must wonder what despicable acts are committed by lowly state school guys after consuming a few beers.
When attending a social event in the future with ladies present, will I be forced to sip wine?
Kavanaugh has officially declared that he likes beer. This makes him one of us.
Thus when ladies hear about about an Ivy Leaguer exposing and forcing himself upon females they must wonder what despicable acts are committed by lowly state school guys after consuming a few beers.
When attending a social event in the future with ladies present, will I be forced to sip wine?
Zeke, what do you have to say about this? Very good chance this is the biggest story to come out of this mess.
Remember, #believewomen.
Daily Caller: NYT Reporters Say Editors Removed Exculpatory Information About Kavanaugh:
This is not a good look. If true, this is a definite failure at one's job.
Did he lie under oath if he doesn't remember doing what he was accused of doing?
So, we can all agree that things have changed. How do you feel about your current GOP being taken over by Trump?
What exactly are you saying the NYT's screw-up was?
I think folks are conflating and offering conclusory comments in vague terms. I doubt there's wide-spread agreement on what NYT screwed up.
No shit.
The Times published a brief excerpt online that was essentially a PR plug for the book that's coming out today or tomorrow. The two authors were on Lawrence last night, and he immediately hit on what went on regarding the excerpt and the omission. The two authors said it was bungled by the editors who chose what to excerpt. The passage in the book itself contains the name of the new person who BK is accused of abusing (or whatever word you care to chose). The editors putting out the excerpt chose not to include the name in the PR blurb, and in the process of editing that out took out the whole phrase/sentence that also included the detail that she herself didn't claim to remember what had happened.
That may or may not sound plausible, depending on your POV. To me it sounds plausible, but it also sounds extremely sloppy and just plain stupid, something an intern might do. I'd chalk it up to a classic example of Hanlon's Razor at work:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Mostly fine, but then again, there is no equivalency for what Trump has done to the GOP.
So, how do you explain the difference between the fact that the Dems are pretty wide in their policy beliefs, while the GOP, as a result of Trump, are willing to trade their own beliefs for party loyalty?
There were several things he lied about. One as simple as saying he didn’t watch her testimony when witnesses saw him doing so. He’d remember that one.
Not so sure it is Trump who is to blame for changes within the ranks of the GOP.
I am more inclined to believe the changes had occurred, and Trump either by chance or on purpose took advantage of the changes.
The changes included dissatisfaction with the GOP establishment along with a desire for nationalism rather than globalism. Also a more direct ardent confrontation with liberalism as in single payer, DACA, and so-called woman's rights, to name a few issues.
So I see Trump as more of an opportunist than someone who set out to alter the GOP establishment.
The one thing which is pure Trump is his leadership style which differs from previous presidents of either party in my view. Some welcome this, while others of us just, shall I say, cannot adjust.
Last edited:
Well, except neither of them were. We know that without question now.
Invincible ignorance. This was bull shit, you all got played. You gleefully participated in a political character assassination and now your pride won't let you admit that, despite your "better media", you were lied to.
That would have made Ford 0-4 on her witnesses. And the FBI was involved, and their involvement found all sorts of witness tampering of the kind that Keyser described. In the case of Ramirez it took 6 days of coaching to "remember" what happened to her and her list of witnesses was even more tenuous than the 4 people who said that Blasey-Ford was full of shit....her own family thought she was bull shitting for crying out loud.
Last edited:
Be careful. By this standard, any omission turns any statement into a falsehood.
Nobody that has been turned up has corroborated anything that has been thrown at Kavanaugh...that includes some of the people who were supposedly his "victims". Anyone participating in this now is willfully taking a dump on a guy because of politics. Nothing more and nothing less.
Yes, that one statement makes seem Trump normal..
No, he's a habitual and chronic liar. There's a huge difference.
