Quantcast
Should Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination Continue?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Should Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination Continue?

Should Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination Continue?

Yes 53 47.32%
 
No 41 36.61%
 
Trump should pick a new canidate 18 16.07%
 
Total:112
melbye said:
Hiku said:

"Some thing", sure.
Probably not if I'm;

a.) Accused of a violent crime because I'm unable to restrain myself
b.) when there are GOP senators who can do the aggressive yelling and threatening for me, like Lindsey Graham
c.) while my accuser, who has also been accused of lying and received countless death threats, was extremely calm and collected
d.) all the while I constantly oppose to an investigation into these claims, that would only make me look more credible if I were innocent.
If I was innocent, I would BEG for an FBI investigation.

He was painting a rather wholesome picture of himself, but we saw his mask come off during the hearing.
And that's all aside from the fact that he's also applying for a job where he's supposed to be able to make calm and rational decisions under pressure, not lie under oath, and as part of his oath put aside partisanship. Instead he threatened "the left" that "what goes around comes around".

They are trying to destroy his life, of course it's going to be hard to remain calm and collected under those circumstances, i can't believe that you take that as him being guilty. This thing is a fucking farce and people have a right to be angry

If he is guilty, having your life destroyed comes with the territory. But let's not pass off assumptions as if they are fact. Try "I think" or "it seems". Not "it is" a farce.
If everyone approached this conversation the way you do, I'd say that Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist who deserves to be locked up. And that wouldn't make for a productive discussion.

As for taking his outburst as him being guilty, that's not what I said. Opposing an FBI investigation is what makes him look incredibly guilty. Not taking a polygraph test when Dr Ford took one and passed, is another indication that he is afraid of being investigated. Same thing for his friend Mark Judge, who was named as another person in the room, denied remembering the event, but refuses to testify under oath (when it's a crime to lie).
His outburst, in a situation where he's supposed to try to look credible (no doubt he's saying and doing a lot worse in private) when he is accused of committing a violent crime because he can't restrain himself, isn't a good look for his case, nor for him being suited for this job.

And let's not forget another story that came up while this was originally investigated. Former classmates of Kavanaugh's started talking about an incident where they heard he put his penis on a girls face against her will. Investigators contacted her, and not only does she say that yes, it happened. But other people at the school say they heard this being talked about right after it allegedly happened.

Then there's a third accuser. Julie Swetnick. She's being represented by Michael Avanati, and released a sworn statement through him. Which is interesting because his former case turned into a criminal conviction against Michael Cohen, and Donld Trump became an unintended co-conspirator in a federal crime. Since his track record has been perfect so far against criminals in Trump's administration, he probably wouldn't represent this woman unless she was credible.

A couple of other classmates of his have also came out and said that he lied about how he behaved at parties during the hearing.
And during the hearing, he replied to "have you ever blacked out?" with "have you?" And after saying that he "some times may have drank too much", he was asked "how much is too much?", He replied "Whatever the... blood alcohol chart says" As if he brought one of those charts with him to parties.
Looks like he accidentally almost admitted to drinking so much he passed out or blacked out, and gave a BS reply to cover it up.
His friend Mark Judge, who was supposedly in the room when he tried to rape Ford, described someone named "Bart O'Kavanaugh" in his book as someone who puked in a car and passed out  on his way back from a party after drinking too much. I don't imagine Kavanaugh wants Mark Judge to speak to FBI investigators, when it's a  crime to lie, punishable by years in prison.

Meanwhile Brett Kavanaugh appears to have lied under oath in 2004 and 2006, and there's currently a criminal investigation into this matter by D.C.courts. He opposed an FBI investigation every time he was asked. (He deferred to the committee's decision, which was to oppose an FBI investigation) Has not taken a polygraph test even though his accuser did. 

A Supreme Court Justice that seemingly lied under oath and opposes an investigation into allegations about his crime certainly doesn't sound like the best pick for the job they could have found.

Last edited by Hiku - on 30 September 2018

Around the Network

At the risk (one that looks more real all the time) of having a rapist on the Supreme Court, delay the vote.



Some days I just blow up.

Hiku said:
melbye said:

They are trying to destroy his life, of course it's going to be hard to remain calm and collected under those circumstances, i can't believe that you take that as him being guilty. This thing is a fucking farce and people have a right to be angry

If he is guilty, having your life destroyed comes with the territory. But let's not pass off assumptions as if they are fact. Try "I think" or "it seems". Not "it is" a farce.
If everyone approached this conversation the way you do, I'd say that Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist who deserves to be locked up. And that wouldn't make for a productive discussion.

Maybe you should tell that to the people who have already decided that he is 100% guilty of what he is accused of. And i think it's a little bit silly to compare my statement that is a farce with he is a rapist that needs to be locked up, one is far more serious. I think it's a farce, OK? If you don't then that's your opinion and you are free to have it



Switch friend-code: 6700-1526-7903

PSN: melbye82

NightlyPoe said:
Hiku said: 
"Some thing", sure.

Probably not if I'm;

a.) Accused of a violent crime because I'm unable to restrain myself
b.) when there are GOP senators who can do the aggressive yelling and threatening for me, like Lindsey Graham
c.) while my accuser, who has also been accused of lying and received countless death threats, was extremely calm and collected
d.) all the while I constantly oppose to an investigation into these claims, that would only make me look more credible if I were innocent.
If I was innocent, I would BEG for an FBI investigation.

He was painting a rather wholesome picture of himself, but we saw his mask come off during the hearing.
And that's all aside from the fact that he's also applying for a job where he's supposed to be able to make calm and rational decisions under pressure, not lie under oath, and as part of his oath put aside partisanship. Instead he threatened "the left" that "what goes around comes around".

You really need to stop with the sanctimony.  That a person would be upset with a group of people aiming to destroy him for political reasons is not a reflection of poor character in any way.  That you say that he was painting a wholesome picture of himself implies that you are taking marching orders.  That you would take words out of context like "what goes around comes around" when he was talking about Democrat tactics being used on their future nominees speaks to your open bad faith.

What you demand is essentially a man watch his reputation go down in flames and do so meekly.  Clarence Thomas was right to take the committee to task for their actions 25 years ago for their recklessness, and Kavanaugh was right to do so this week.

You're acting as if someone can't firmly and strongly defend themselves without being hysterical. And not just anyone, but a judge who supposedly believes that the proper way to the truth is through a civil process, and not a screaming contest between a lawyer and a prosecutor, in a situation where he knows that optics are incredibly important when it comes to credibility.

The fact that he couldn't be firm without being hysterical when he had ample time to prepare does say something about his character and how he acts under pressure. And it makes him look more likely to be the violent person  who can't control his impulses he was described to be by his accuser, than if he had remained calm, like Dr Ford did in spite of multiple death threats to the point where she and her family couldn't even sleep in their own house. He knows very well that credibility is tied to how you behave under pressure, and he completely blew it.
This was Ford vs Kavanaugh in a hearing that was ultimately about credibility. So it's appropriate to compare their behavior. If her calm demeanor was a + for her, then Kavanaugh's hysterical statement was a - for him. Even president Trump, along with several Fox News anchors, called her "very credible", and the latter said it was a devastating blow for the GOP.

And him saying that he was a virgin then and for several years to come, while denying that he lost control of himself while partying and drinking, and saying he always treated women with dignity and respect, is trying to paint a wholesome picture of himself. How did you get me "taking marching orders" from that?
And when I mentioned "what goes around comes around", that's exactly what I was referring to. That what one specific political side is supposedly doing to him, is going to come back at them. What did you think I meant? And why don't you try asking first before being presumptuous and making personal attacks?

Also, shout outs to all the defendants who watched their reputation go down in flames because they were represented by a calm and collected legal council, and were not allowed to scream, cry and make threats at their accusers. Oh wait...

Last edited by Hiku - on 30 September 2018

Hiku said:
NightlyPoe said:

You really need to stop with the sanctimony.  That a person would be upset with a group of people aiming to destroy him for political reasons is not a reflection of poor character in any way.  That you say that he was painting a wholesome picture of himself implies that you are taking marching orders.  That you would take words out of context like "what goes around comes around" when he was talking about Democrat tactics being used on their future nominees speaks to your open bad faith.

What you demand is essentially a man watch his reputation go down in flames and do so meekly.  Clarence Thomas was right to take the committee to task for their actions 25 years ago for their recklessness, and Kavanaugh was right to do so this week.

No, you're acting as if someone can't firmly defend themselves without emotional outbursts of this nature. And not just anyone, but a judge who supposedly believes that the proper way to the truth is through a civil process, and not a screaming contest between a lawyer and a prosecutor.

The fact that he couldn't be firm without being hysterical when he had ample time to prepare does say something about his character and how he acts under pressure. And it makes him look more likely to be the violent person  who can't control him impulses he was described to be by his accuser, then if he had remained calm, like Dr Ford did in spite of multiple death threats to the point where she and her family couldn't even sleep in their own house. He knows very well that credibility is tied to how you behave under pressure, and he completely blew it.
This was Ford vs Kavanaugh in a hearing that was ultimately about credibility. So it's appropriate to compare their behavior. If her calm demeanor was a + for her, then Kavanaugh's hysterical statement was a - for him. Even president Trump, along with several Fox News anchors, called her "very credible", and the latter said it was a devastating blow for the GOP.

And him saying that he was a virgin then and for several years to come, while denying that he lost control of himself while partying and drinking, and saying he always treated women with dignity and respect, is trying to paint a wholesome picture of himself. How did you get me "taking marching orders" from that?
And when I mentioned "what goes around comes around", that's exactly what I was referring to. That what one specific political side is supposedly doing to him, is going to come back at them. What did you think I meant? And why don't you try asking first before being presumptuous and making personal attacks?

Also, shout outs to all the defendants who watched their reputation go down in flames because they were represented by a calm and collected legal council, and were not allowed to scream, cry and make threats at their accusers. Oh wait...

Yeah, if Kavanaugh was innocent, why would he act like that DURING THE HEARINGS?



Some days I just blow up.

Around the Network
melbye said:
Hiku said:

If he is guilty, having your life destroyed comes with the territory. But let's not pass off assumptions as if they are fact. Try "I think" or "it seems". Not "it is" a farce.
If everyone approached this conversation the way you do, I'd say that Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist who deserves to be locked up. And that wouldn't make for a productive discussion.

Maybe you should tell that to the people who have already decided that he is 100% guilty of what he is accused of. And i think it's a little bit silly to compare my statement that is a farce with he is a rapist that needs to be locked up, one is far more serious. I think it's a farce, OK? If you don't then that's your opinion and you are free to have it

Because I haven't reprimanded every person in here who made false claims, it's ok for you to assert assumptions as if they are facts in a discussion with me?
That's just contributing to the problem.
How about I'm responsible for what I say, and you're responsible for what you say? If you find that I say something that's unfair, wrong or improper, then you tell me, and vice versa.

Anyway, yes the allegations are serious. By farce you mean made up? If this isn't a farce, then he is an attempted rapists. So someone who has already decided what is 100% true would claim it's either a lie, or that he is a rapist.

Last edited by Hiku - on 30 September 2018

Yes, should continue, unless evidence becomes incontrovertible, in which case the White House would pull his nomination, and Kavanaugh would become subject to criminal proceedings. Unless that happens, our system is innocent until proven guilty. We can't just go around and accuse people of things and then have their lives be ruined without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The alternative is complete and total lawlessness.

I should add that this issue has become politicized, and it's between two groups of people with two different philosophies.  If you're a Democrat, Kavanaugh is a rapist who shouldn't be confirmed.  If you're a Republican, Kavanaugh is innocent and this woman was pulled out of the woodwork at the eleventh hour, in a desperate bid to stop Kavanaugh being confirmed.  This is a person's personal and professional life at stake, whether you agree with his textualist Constitutional philosophical interpretation or you disagree with it.  That has nothing to do with whether he sexually assaulted someone when he was eighteen at a college party.  

We need to keep level heads about this, and be careful how we proceed.  People are letting their personal political philosophy and agenda get in the way of their judgement, and that is not good.

Last edited by Screamapillar - on 30 September 2018

The Screamapillar is easily identified by its constant screaming—it even screams in its sleep. The Screamapillar is the favorite food of everything, is sexually attracted to fire, and needs constant reassurance or it will die.

PwerlvlAmy said:
Absolutely continue. Innocent until proven guilty. No evidence that he's guilty(thus far). Vote should happen by mid next week as it passed the committee earlier today to send it to the floor and the 7th FBI check will be pretty quick.

Uh, witness testimony isn't evidence? Not sure if serious or just incredibly ignorant to what constitutes evidence in a court of law in the United States.

At no point has the FBI investigated these allegations, so stating that the 7th will be pretty quick is downright asinine on your behalf. 

Prototypical Kavanaugh supporter. Ignore reason, ignore evidence, just nod head in agreement.

Kavanaugh admitted to drinking in excess but seems to think it's possible to have no lapses in memory. These two things do not jive, it's basic science.

What type of weirdo saves a calendar for 30 years? It's as if he suspected this day would come.

Kavanaugh lied about his connections to Yale, lied about his upbringing which was anything but difficult, and dodged every question he was asked.

There are people in this thread who are absolutely clueless when it comes to reading people and using a pragmatic approach to analyzing the *facts* of this case.

The most likely scenario is that Booze-boy Bart was hammered, forgot the night in question and that's why he can deny it with a clean conscience. But we've seen that he doesn't give a shit about a clean conscience and lied under oath repeatedly so even if he did remember lying is completely within his character.

Let's get a nominee who isn't being accused of sexual assault by multiple women, one of which was completely credible and has nothing to gain from this experience. 



I'm just glad this guy is getting is thorough vetting before being a supreme judge. We already have a pussy grabber in the WH. This has got to stop.



CaptainExplosion said:

Yeah, if Kavanaugh was innocent, why would he act like that DURING THE HEARINGS?

You can argue it either way. If he's guilty and trying to get away with it, why rant & rave? I think that whether he's guilty or innocent he either made a calculation or was actually tipped off by Republicans that an emotional performance would play better. If he had been cool & composed people would have said “only a misgynist could have been that detached after hearing her evidence in the morning.”