Kavanaugh
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
... was a drunk, loose, party ....
rapist.
Kavanaugh
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
... was a drunk, loose, party ....
rapist.
wejo wrote:
And yes she likely wasn't a saint in high school either but that doesn't disprove her claims just as the fact he wasn't a saint either doesn't prove them.
The fact that he lied during the hearing goes along way to proving he shouldn't be on the court-which is the central issue. ( I like how in 2018 nothing can be called a lie ). He fabricated this false image and didn't waver from that, even when facts and his own calendar disproved him.
Kavanaugh is smart, he's done pretty good for a Yale grad. . If he winds up on the SCOTUS, it's because he is an exceptional liar.
Feasting wrote:
An intellectual feast? wrote:
My opinion is that yearbooks typically have dirty comments as a joke. The yearbook comments are just youthful bragging, trying to be cool. Someone writes a dirty comment in your book, you write something dirty back.
I agree. He was mad the yearbooks were brought up, yet they were easily and possibly truthfully dismissed. "They were immature jokes, guys boasting" for every yearbook question. Instead, we had a literal explanation of the terms.
You said you were providing your opinion then you you spin it into what definitely happened.
No. "yearbook comments" are NOT "just youthful bragging". They tell you a lot about the person. Kavanaugh claimed in his yearbook he was an underage drinker. He testified that was an underage drinker. Let that sink in.
You're right, I don't know what definitely happened. Please change "The yearbook comments" to "Yearbook comments are usually". I agree with Wejo the answers are possibly problematic, although I didn't know the terms myself and they possibly could have had different meanings 35 years ago.
I went to Yale, Ask me how wrote:
wejo wrote:
And yes she likely wasn't a saint in high school either but that doesn't disprove her claims just as the fact he wasn't a saint either doesn't prove them.
The fact that he lied during the hearing goes along way to proving he shouldn't be on the court-which is the central issue. ( I like how in 2018 nothing can be called a lie ). He fabricated this false image and didn't waver from that, even when facts and his own calendar disproved him.
Kavanaugh is smart, he's done pretty good for a Yale grad. . If he winds up on the SCOTUS, it's because he is an exceptional liar.
Kavanaugh also testified he got into Yale entirely on his own. But, his grandfather was a Yale graduate. So, Kavanaugh is a legacy.
Some of this nonsense is finally being addressed:
TTH wrote:
Between the accused and the accuser, the only one who can be proven to either lie or duck from the full truth is Kavanaugh.
Only the accused is attempting to be confirmed for the Supreme Court.
It is far more important that the nominee be shown as completely forthcoming than the accuser, even if the accuser's account of happenings many years ago can not be completely confirmed nor specifically apply to the nominee in the fashion she outlines.
This should eliminate him from consideration and another nominee be brought forth and confirmed.
Under this non-system any accuser can make allegations which are not proven and they should be "eliminated".
This is a ludicrous system which should not and can not be applied.
Your view is therefore invalid.
30% wrote:
pissed off wrote:
Hear it from a very liberal prosecutor who has interacted with Kavanaugh frequently:
Only 30% of the American people approve of Kavanaugh.
The ABA does not approve of Kavanaugh.
The ACLU does not approve of Kavanaugh.
Yale Law School says they are not likely to rehire Kavanaugh next term.
5% of Democratic, and 17% of independent women approved of Kavanaugh.
30% of Republicans women disapprove of Kavanaugh.
. . .
Looks bleak for your side; the angry white, sexist, racist male.
We are now at the stage where "white" and "male" are used as slurs by people who believe they are opponents of racism and sexism.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Some of this nonsense is finally being addressed:
That must be the two men who confessed to being "the one" who attacked Ford. Yup, two different men who do not know each other claimed to be "the one" to the the committee republicans. Committed democrats were not allowed to know who confessed?
BTW: Trump has limited the FBI investigation. As Kellyanne Conway stated: This is not a finishing expedition. It didn't take Grassley long to turn it into one.
Rodimus wrote:
Under this non-system any accuser can make allegations which are not proven and they should be "eliminated".
This is a ludicrous system which should not and can not be applied.
That is not how the law works. It can be applied.
Rodimus wrote:
We are now at the stage where "white" and "male" are used as slurs by people who believe they are opponents of racism and sexism.
Go back and read the pro-Kavanaugh posts that attack Blasey Ford as ....
Maybe you didn't see those.
The two guys who confessed wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Some of this nonsense is finally being addressed:
That must be the two men who confessed to being "the one" who attacked Ford. Yup, two different men who do not know each other claimed to be "the one" to the the committee republicans. Committed democrats were not allowed to know who confessed?
BTW: Trump has limited the FBI investigation. As Kellyanne Conway stated: This is not a finishing expedition. It didn't take Grassley long to turn it into one.
Investigate them for false reporting, I could care less what party they are from.
The actual law wrote:
Rodimus wrote:
Under this non-system any accuser can make allegations which are not proven and they should be "eliminated".
This is a ludicrous system which should not and can not be applied.
That is not how the law works. It can be applied.
The left are attempting to overturn presumption of innocence and replace it with presumption of guilt or something functionally the same as presumption of guilt.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Investigate them for false reporting, I could care less what party they are from.
While republicans refuse to investigate true reporting.
It good to see that you agree that Mark Judge needs to be fully investigate in terms of employment history. That would either help support, or squash, Ford's claim.
Why haven't the senate republicans, or the White House, leaked the names to of the two different men who confessed to the same thing?
30% wrote:
Rodimus wrote:
We are now at the stage where "white" and "male" are used as slurs by people who believe they are opponents of racism and sexism.
Go back and read the pro-Kavanaugh posts that attack Blasey Ford as ....
Maybe you didn't see those.
Regardless of whether there are white people and males who have been sexist and racist it is undeniable that "white male" is used as a slur by many.
Rodimus wrote:
The left are attempting to overturn . . .
Your mask fell off.
The two guys who confessed wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Investigate them for false reporting, I could care less what party they are from.
While republicans refuse to investigate true reporting.
It good to see that you agree that Mark Judge needs to be fully investigate in terms of employment history. That would either help support, or squash, Ford's claim.
Why haven't the senate republicans, or the White House, leaked the names to of the two different men who confessed to the same thing?
Oh the Safeway thing. That is so fake.
Rodimus wrote:
Regardless of whether there are white people and males who have been sexist and racist it is undeniable that "white male" is used as a slur by many.
Go back and read the comments made by white male about Ford. They do not seem to repulse you in any way. Only the white male thing.
It's interesting to see the Democrats dropping the whole "believe her" thing and now their life's passion is whether someone knows what "boof" means under oath.
It's been the same pattern through the whole Neo-McCarthyite Mueller campaign since 2016. Raise a bogus stink about something, anything, to set a perjury trap. Get someone under oath and keep asking questions until they lie about something, no matter how trivial, then pounce on it.
It is as transparent as ever.
The actual law wrote:
Rodimus wrote:
The left are attempting to overturn . . .
Your mask fell off.
Assuming I'm wearing a mask somehow implies I'm hiding myself or my opinions.
Rodimus wrote:
The left are attempting to overturn presumption of innocence and replace it with presumption of guilt or something functionally the same as presumption of guilt.
So you think Harvey Weinstein was a victim of a which hurt by the left circumventing the rule of law? Harvey should have his job back until he’s actualy been convicted, right?
Did you go out and rally for Al Franken to keep his job? Was he a also victim of the left? Nobody from the right and Fox News wanted him gone because of the allegations only... sure buddy.
The #metoo movement isn’t confined to any political party, and it’s gone through Hollywood more (a left wing bastion only Trump was saved from by becoming Republican). It’s just that those on the right will defend an alleged rapist if he’s a right wing rapist and crucify an alleged rapist if he’s a left wing rapist. You have no honor.