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
Machiavellian said:
DrDoomz said:

Um. I think you have it backwards. You keep saying I’m not understanding you but you’re just repeating my point as if that wasn’t the point I already made. I literally just said that this was all just basic politics and nothing new and you keep trying to explain to me what I already stated....

And I never said this wasn’t politics on both sides of the fence. Where did you even get the idea that I said that?

The Repubs would of course try to push their agenda forward as fast as possible and the Dems would try to delay it as much as they could. This would all be par for course and wouldn’t even register as a blip on my radar.

The difference, to me, is that sexual misconduct (while common in politics) or most any kind of accusation have always hinged on some form of proof. Or at least solid testimony. AFAIK I have never heard of any high profile instances where no proof and only accusations was all that was needed in order to try and bury someone and be so embraced by the politicians, the media and celebrities and the liberal half of the public. Allthewhile practically throwing an entire movement under the bus (while many supporters of said movement urged them on with great enthusiasm). If succesful, the precedence to me would have been very scary. And it should be scary to everyone here. If you know any time where this happened in the past similar to how it happened now, pls educate me so as to correct my view of how things have worked in the past.

And what do you mean by nix? You mean not entertain the accusations at all or nix Kav’s nomination?

From where I stood, the GOP did their usual song and dance while the Dems tried to see if they could succesfully pull off pushing an old political tactic to even lower lows (w/c fortunately ultimately failed).

Boiling down everything back to one simple frame, politics.  Nothing new, nothing different, just another day in American politics.  We can argue over semantics all day long.  This vote was never going to be about a claim of sexual assault but instead of character.  I would be the first to say, that denying Kavanaugh for an alleged assault over 30+ years ago was never something I would have stop his confirmation over.  Instead, I watched how he answered questions given him, dodge questions he didn't like and appeared to just lie when pushed.  For me it was never about the accusations because we will never know the truth to that event.  My position was how does a man going for the SC handle a pressure situation and Kavanaugh failed.  Human or not human, leaders show how they handle high stressful situations and what I saw in Kavanaugh is just another partisan appointed representative who under duress reverted to his true self.

I fail to see how one can see “accusation = guilt” being pushed by one side as normal (if you cannot see how frightening that is, then I don’t think anyone would be able to convince you of anything) and par for course and then see someone being upset over accusations (that is being believed by the media, the celebs and half the ppl out there that is extremely damaging to his family/career/rep/life) as some sort of disqualifying variable without some extreme form of double standard here. One is normal for a human being the other may well destroy the foundation of justice as we know it. Sorry to say, not gonna fault someone for having the same failings as I do (because I do my best to not be a hypocrite) but I will fault others who are sinking to levels that I would never ever sink to.

I also find the whole “he didn’t handle pressure well” logic completely disengenouos. I mean how does that even significantly relate to his job? Didn’t think being a SC justice was some sort of a high stress, pressure cooker type of position. Must be really bad for the heart for all them other older SC justices amirite? No offense, but I feel like Dems just like to say that since that’s what they were told to think. I mean it literally makes no sense to me. And let’s be honest here, whatever other reaction or lack thereof he would have had would have just been spun by the media and put in the same negative light in one form or another.

As for partisanship, you might have a point. I mean, if he wasn’t partisan BEFORE, he sure as hell has a damn good reason to be NOW, don’t you think? Personally, if the Dems argued this angle instead of the unprovable unsupported sexual misconduct allegations, they might have still have failed to stop the confirmation but at least the negative perceptions would have landed squarely on the Repub’s laps and they would have avoided polarizing opinions on the issue.

Last edited by DrDoomz - on 08 October 2018

Around the Network
DrDoomz said:

Machiavellian said:

Boiling down everything back to one simple frame, politics.  Nothing new, nothing different, just another day in American politics.  We can argue over semantics all day long.  This vote was never going to be about a claim of sexual assault but instead of character.  I would be the first to say, that denying Kavanaugh for an alleged assault over 30+ years ago was never something I would have stop his confirmation over.  Instead, I watched how he answered questions given him, dodge questions he didn't like and appeared to just lie when pushed.  For me it was never about the accusations because we will never know the truth to that event.  My position was how does a man going for the SC handle a pressure situation and Kavanaugh failed.  Human or not human, leaders show how they handle high stressful situations and what I saw in Kavanaugh is just another partisan appointed representative who under duress reverted to his true self.

I fail *snips*

So you think that kind of behavior is acceptable in a interview? If your boss asked you if you ever blackout from drinking, and you say, "I don't know, have you.." Do you think that's not disrespectful? Would you hire that person?

My only question is why is he so angry and combative in a job interview. I would understand his defensive angry behavior if this was a trial in a court of law, but it wasn't.



SpokenTruth said:
irstupid said:

I'm sure a shit ton of laws have been passed that weren't read by a many congressman. THere are also just as many passed that have stipulations or mutliple things in. I HATE that. You know the whole, we want this law passed, but the dems or reps won't vote yes unless they also add this to the law. Wish that was illegal. Each law/bill/ect shoudl be voted on it solely.

But only one I can think of that flat out was like "you can read it when it's passed" was AIA. Any others were just lack of care, imo, on congressmen. The dems just wanted to make sure the AIA got passed before they lost the numbers to pass it.

That too.  Slipping in a bunch of unrelated laws in a big omnibus bill while focusing on only one main issue is rather nefarious. 

41 states of single-subject laws which ensure every vote is solely for one single issue at a time.  I wish that were a federal rule too.

Pelosi's "Lets pass it so we can see what's inside" is the biggest, most brash admission I can think of.  I've heard another congressman admit during an interview that they often do not read what they vote on but I don't recall who it was.  I'll see if I can track it down.

I agree on the general point you guys are making but I have to question the specific example you are using.  As I recall I looked into this and that quote was taken out of context (what a shock).  Pelosi was responding to all the doom and gloom Republicans were saying, death panels etc.  She was saying, look, none of that stuff is true but they're never going to believe me, so we have to pass it and the results will speak for themselves.  In other words, it wasn't that the text was unknown but that the text's interpretation was being disputed. 

If I'm misremembering the quote, or if there's a different quote closer to the meaning you ascribe, let me know. 

Last edited by Final-Fan - on 08 October 2018

Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

deskpro2k3 said:
DrDoomz said:

I fail *snips*

So you think that kind of behavior is acceptable in a interview? If your boss asked you if you ever blackout from drinking, and you say, "I don't know, have you.." Do you think that's not disrespectful? Would you hire that person?

My only question is why is he so angry and combative in a job interview. I would understand his defensive angry behavior if this was a trial in a court of law, but it wasn't.

Tbh thats the cop out excuse people have been using to grasp at straws to find anything negative to say about him after one thing after another didnt work

1. Groped someone, that didnt work

2. Raped someone, that didnt work

3. Gang raped someone,that didnt work

4. He drank beers/got drunk, that didnt work

5. He throw Ice at someone at one point, that didnt work

Now since those didnt work they fall on the ''his temper'' and now putting in new rules that makes it illegal to show emotion when you are accused(with no evidence) of a heinous crime.

 

Left/Democrats should've handled this way better than they did. 

If you would've asked me who I thought was going to win the mid terms just 2 weeks ago, I would've told you without hesitation that democrats seem like they were going to do it. But after this Kavanaugh showing. I'm not so sure anymore, they've not only energized the lazy republican base, but also have turned away independent voters who might have been on their side. Just a really bad strategy. 



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick

PwerlvlAmy said:
deskpro2k3 said:

So you think that kind of behavior is acceptable in a interview? If your boss asked you if you ever blackout from drinking, and you say, "I don't know, have you.." Do you think that's not disrespectful? Would you hire that person?

My only question is why is he so angry and combative in a job interview. I would understand his defensive angry behavior if this was a trial in a court of law, but it wasn't.

Tbh thats the cop out excuse people have been using to grasp at straws to find anything negative to say about him after one thing after another didnt work

1. Groped someone, that didnt work

2. Raped someone, that didnt work

3. Gang raped someone,that didnt work

4. He drank beers/got drunk, that didnt work

5. He throw Ice at someone at one point, that didnt work

Now since those didnt work they fall on the ''his temper'' and now putting in new rules that makes it illegal to show emotion when you are accused(with no evidence) of a heinous crime.

 

Left/Democrats should've handled this way better than they did. 

If you would've asked me who I thought was going to win the mid terms just 2 weeks ago, I would've told you without hesitation that democrats seem like they were going to do it. But after this Kavanaugh showing. I'm not so sure anymore, they've not only energized the lazy republican base, but also have turned away independent voters who might have been on their side. Just a really bad strategy. 

 

He was getting the job anyways in my opinion, but I do think more people have woken up to vote. Those that vote red have always voted red, some are changing to blue, and those who never voted before is going to. Can't wait to see how this turns out.



Around the Network
deskpro2k3 said:
PwerlvlAmy said:

Tbh thats the cop out excuse people have been using to grasp at straws to find anything negative to say about him after one thing after another didnt work

1. Groped someone, that didnt work

2. Raped someone, that didnt work

3. Gang raped someone,that didnt work

4. He drank beers/got drunk, that didnt work

5. He throw Ice at someone at one point, that didnt work

Now since those didnt work they fall on the ''his temper'' and now putting in new rules that makes it illegal to show emotion when you are accused(with no evidence) of a heinous crime.

 

Left/Democrats should've handled this way better than they did. 

If you would've asked me who I thought was going to win the mid terms just 2 weeks ago, I would've told you without hesitation that democrats seem like they were going to do it. But after this Kavanaugh showing. I'm not so sure anymore, they've not only energized the lazy republican base, but also have turned away independent voters who might have been on their side. Just a really bad strategy. 

 

He was getting the job anyways in my opinion, but I do think more people have woken up to vote. Those that vote red have always voted red, some are changing to blue, and those who never voted before is going to. Can't wait to see how this turns out.

It's definitely going to be a crazy midterm. Prob most interesting one I can remember in recent memory. 



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick

deskpro2k3 said:
DrDoomz said:

I fail *snips*

*snips* I don't think *snips*

 

Really? That’s your question? I’ve actually conducted job interviews before. I wouldn’t expect the person I’m interviewing to be non-angry and non-combative if I opened my door and in my loudest voice, accused him of being a rapist in front of the entire office while his family was waiting at a nearby reception area.

You might wanna think about that a second.



Personally, I didn't follow the hearings as closely as I could have but I didn't see "accusation = guilt" nearly as much as "accusation = maybe we shouldn't railroad this guy through the process at top speed instead of taking some time to investigate". I did, however, see a fair amount of "you don't immediately disbelieve the accusations = you must be assuming he's guilty"



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

DrDoomz said:
 

*snips some weird shit*

No sane person would do that, but who am I to judge.

Last edited by deskpro2k3 - on 08 October 2018

double post

Last edited by deskpro2k3 - on 08 October 2018