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
the-pi-guy said:
thismeintiel said:

You know you have no argument when you are reduced to arguing semantics.  It's time to move on.  He never perjured himself and no one is going to seriously pursue that angle legally.  Unless they want to lose all credibility.  It was just another lie to get the Dem base riled up. 

If anyone perjured themselves, it was Ford.  With her obvious lie about being afraid to fly and why/when the second door was put on her house.  The lie detector part may have been, but since it probably could never be proven, no point in focusing on it.

This is just as concerned about semantics as everything I've said.  

Yea, no.  You can't claim that you are so afraid of flying that you have to delay an extremely important hearing, and have to drive in, then actually get there by flight, anyway.  And in your past you have flown dozens of times.  And not just for work, but for leisure, as well.  Someone who was as terrified of flying as she presented herself would not make flying a normal part of their hobby.  If they actually wanted to pursue it and get all the things she, or her lawyers, scrubbed from her Facebook, I would bet anything that you would be more likely to see posts of her saying she was looking forward to flying to X than her talking about dreading the flight.

But, if you want to go with what is already been proven beyond a doubt, there is the door.

RolStoppable said:
I haven't really followed this case, but weren't there three women who accused Kavanaugh? There's only talk about one woman though, so what happened to the other two?

The other two were also found to not be credible.  The 2nd accuser said she wasn't even sure it was Kavanaugh until she talked with her lawyer for about a week.  Yea, cause that's how you remember things.  The third turned out to basically be a loon.  She said that she kept going to these rape parties, and couldn't remember if she was raped at the first or last.  Keep in mind she would have several years older than Kavanaugh and his friends at the time.  Then, she changed her story during an interview to not sure about anything.  Even her quack pot lawyer basically dropped her and started looking for others who would be willing to accuse.

Regardless, all the stories are the same.  They all continue to change and they have no corroborating evidence.



Around the Network
contestgamer said:

Popular vote doesnt matter. Gerrymandering makes this a sustainable strategy, as well as voter suppression laws and other tactics. There's no reason to believe it wont work in the future as it has in the past. Democrats can keep hanging their hats on the popular votes while we win the elections.

Well at least you are honest with yourself about how Republicans win elections (It's distressing that you seem to take pride in it though).

"The true symbol of the United States is not the bald eagle. It is the pendulum. And when the pendulum swings too far in one direction it will go back." -- Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

"...what goes around comes around." --Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1gWECYYOSo

Please Watch/Share this video so it gets shown in Hollywood.

Signalstar said: 

"The true symbol of the United States is not the bald eagle. It is the pendulum. And when the pendulum swings too far in one direction it will go back." -- Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

 

The best thing about RBG, is that she is the next SCOTUS justice to bite the dust.  Bye, Bye, RBG, glad we hardly knew ye.... Bring on the next nominee...



NightlyPoe said:

Look, the difference between saying someone said something didn't happen and that they don't remember can amount to the same thing when speaking.  This is indeed a pure argument of semantics.

No it isn't.  For a judge especially, there's a major difference.  

What'd you have for lunch a year ago?  Must not have happened, if you can't remember.

For people of the law, it's an important distinction.  Not remembering can mean it did or didn't happen and it's still on the table as a possibility.  Saying it didn't happen, means it didn't happen.  Saying "something didn't happen" refutes the event.  Saying they have no memory of the event, does not.  

NightlyPoe said:

I'm focusing on what he likely was thinking when he said it.  He probably wasn't thinking "Well, me and my buddies had beers together without her, that's probably close enough".  He was thinking of the differences.

Well that doesn't make any sense, but okay.

Usually when you ask me if I've done "something like X", I think categorically, not specifically.

If you ask me, have I been to K-Mart?  I might say "no, but I've been to similar stores like Wal-mart"

But you might answer, "no i've never been to a similar store, I only go to Wal-mart."  Because you say that makes more sense to you.

 

You like to give him the benefit of the doubt and blame her.  

I don't want to give either of them the benefit of the doubt.

NightlyPoe said:

Just because Democrats call a person moderate in talking her up, doesn't make it true and doesn't mean that they were actually worried about her joining the O'Connor and Kennedy.

Really, all you've proven is media bias with that.  Same with Garland, just going with the moderate label even though it is inaccurate.

I don't even care about this anymore.  

All this democrats vs republican arguments disgusts me.  

thismeintiel said:
the-pi-guy said:

This is just as concerned about semantics as everything I've said.  

Yea, no.  You can't claim that you are so afraid of flying that you have to delay an extremely important hearing, and have to drive in, then actually get there by flight, anyway.  And in your past you have flown dozens of times.  And not just for work, but for leisure, as well.  Someone who was as terrified of flying as she presented herself would not make flying a normal part of their hobby.  If they actually wanted to pursue it and get all the things she, or her lawyers, scrubbed from her Facebook, I would bet anything that you would be more likely to see posts of her saying she was looking forward to flying to X than her talking about dreading the flight.

But, if you want to go with what is already been proven beyond a doubt, there is the door.

Yeah you can.  People can be brave and do things they are afraid to do.  

I'm incredibly afraid of public speaking, and if you asked me, I'd almost rather die than speak in public.  Yet I've managed to do so many times.  



the-pi-guy said:
NightlyPoe said:

Look, the difference between saying someone said something didn't happen and that they don't remember can amount to the same thing when speaking.  This is indeed a pure argument of semantics.

No it isn't.  For a judge especially, there's a major difference.  

What'd you have for lunch a year ago?  Must not have happened, if you can't remember.

For people of the law, it's an important distinction.  Not remembering can mean it did or didn't happen and it's still on the table as a possibility.  Saying it didn't happen, means it didn't happen.  Saying "something didn't happen" refutes the event.  Saying they have no memory of the event, does not.  

NightlyPoe said:

I'm focusing on what he likely was thinking when he said it.  He probably wasn't thinking "Well, me and my buddies had beers together without her, that's probably close enough".  He was thinking of the differences.

Well that doesn't make any sense, but okay.

Usually when you ask me if I've done "something like X", I think categorically, not specifically.

If you ask me, have I been to K-Mart?  I might say "no, but I've been to similar stores like Wal-mart"

But you might answer, "no i've never been to a similar store, I only go to Wal-mart."  Because you say that makes more sense to you.

 

You like to give him the benefit of the doubt and blame her.  

I don't want to give either of them the benefit of the doubt.

NightlyPoe said:

Just because Democrats call a person moderate in talking her up, doesn't make it true and doesn't mean that they were actually worried about her joining the O'Connor and Kennedy.

Really, all you've proven is media bias with that.  Same with Garland, just going with the moderate label even though it is inaccurate.

I don't even care about this anymore.  

All this democrats vs republican arguments disgusts me.  

thismeintiel said:

Yea, no.  You can't claim that you are so afraid of flying that you have to delay an extremely important hearing, and have to drive in, then actually get there by flight, anyway.  And in your past you have flown dozens of times.  And not just for work, but for leisure, as well.  Someone who was as terrified of flying as she presented herself would not make flying a normal part of their hobby.  If they actually wanted to pursue it and get all the things she, or her lawyers, scrubbed from her Facebook, I would bet anything that you would be more likely to see posts of her saying she was looking forward to flying to X than her talking about dreading the flight.

But, if you want to go with what is already been proven beyond a doubt, there is the door.

Yeah you can.  People can be brave and do things they are afraid to do.  

I'm incredibly afraid of public speaking, and if you asked me, I'd almost rather die than speak in public.  Yet I've managed to do so many times.  

I thought you didn’t want to give either the benefit of the doubt? Isn’t your last comment doing exactly that for Ford?



Around the Network

I still can't believe I'm actually siding with a man who's not only conservative but an advocate for the Patriot Act.. This is the monster the Dems have turned me into lol. My 20 year old self would never believe this.



poklane said:
jason1637 said:

They didn't want to set a precedent.

Bad idea. The GOP would just retsack the court a few years later.

Fine, and then the Democrats can do so again a few years later

You know you are giving every new justice a large salary and lifetime tenure? Typical of a Democrat sympathiser to come up with a magic formula that involves increasing the cost of the bench at every change of administration!

 

Nighthawk117 said:
Signalstar said: 

"The true symbol of the United States is not the bald eagle. It is the pendulum. And when the pendulum swings too far in one direction it will go back." -- Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

 

The best thing about RBG, is that she is the next SCOTUS justice to bite the dust.  Bye, Bye, RBG, glad we hardly knew ye.... Bring on the next nominee...

Unnecessary & mean-spirited.



the-pi-guy said:
NightlyPoe said:

Look, the difference between saying someone said something didn't happen and that they don't remember can amount to the same thing when speaking.  This is indeed a pure argument of semantics.

No it isn't.  For a judge especially, there's a major difference.  

What'd you have for lunch a year ago?  Must not have happened, if you can't remember.

For people of the law, it's an important distinction.  Not remembering can mean it did or didn't happen and it's still on the table as a possibility.  Saying it didn't happen, means it didn't happen.  Saying "something didn't happen" refutes the event.  Saying they have no memory of the event, does not.  

NightlyPoe said:

I'm focusing on what he likely was thinking when he said it.  He probably wasn't thinking "Well, me and my buddies had beers together without her, that's probably close enough".  He was thinking of the differences.

Well that doesn't make any sense, but okay.

Usually when you ask me if I've done "something like X", I think categorically, not specifically.

If you ask me, have I been to K-Mart?  I might say "no, but I've been to similar stores like Wal-mart"

But you might answer, "no i've never been to a similar store, I only go to Wal-mart."  Because you say that makes more sense to you.

 

You like to give him the benefit of the doubt and blame her.  

I don't want to give either of them the benefit of the doubt.

NightlyPoe said:

Just because Democrats call a person moderate in talking her up, doesn't make it true and doesn't mean that they were actually worried about her joining the O'Connor and Kennedy.

Really, all you've proven is media bias with that.  Same with Garland, just going with the moderate label even though it is inaccurate.

I don't even care about this anymore.  

All this democrats vs republican arguments disgusts me.  

thismeintiel said:

Yea, no.  You can't claim that you are so afraid of flying that you have to delay an extremely important hearing, and have to drive in, then actually get there by flight, anyway.  And in your past you have flown dozens of times.  And not just for work, but for leisure, as well.  Someone who was as terrified of flying as she presented herself would not make flying a normal part of their hobby.  If they actually wanted to pursue it and get all the things she, or her lawyers, scrubbed from her Facebook, I would bet anything that you would be more likely to see posts of her saying she was looking forward to flying to X than her talking about dreading the flight.

But, if you want to go with what is already been proven beyond a doubt, there is the door.

Yeah you can.  People can be brave and do things they are afraid to do.  

I'm incredibly afraid of public speaking, and if you asked me, I'd almost rather die than speak in public.  Yet I've managed to do so many times.  

Again you've moved off of lying.

And, as has been pointed out, he read the actual statement during the hearings.

Well that doesn't make any sense, but okay.

What doesn't make sense to me is assuming that he meant that he had never had a beer with his friends in a small gathering.

In either case, your threshold for "lie" here is based on assuming your highly narrow interpretation.

All this democrats vs republican arguments disgusts me.  

Media bias is real.  And in the 90s there really was no check on it.  Again, no one thought that Ginsburg was really going to tack to the center and join Kennedy and O'Connor.  It was a way to fool people.  Same as Garland.



DarthMetalliCube said:
I still can't believe I'm actually siding with a man who's not only conservative but an advocate for the Patriot Act.. This is the monster the Dems have turned me into lol. My 20 year old self would never believe this.

See, that is an actual and completely valid issue I have with Kavanaugh. His stance on surveillance and the 4th Amendment is something I strongly disagree with. However, what did the Democrats, protesters, and media focus on? The sexual assault allegations and how Kavanaugh was "too emotional" during his hearing.



It should.