Official Brett Kavanaugh confirmation thread

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Hard to believe most of these folks are legally adults.

That certainly excludes you.

One thing we can all agree on is Kavanaugh doesn’t give a flying f*ck about the “forgotten man”. Trump likes him because he’s been in touch with Trump’s lawyers and will oppose any efforts to indict trump and his family. He will vote in favor of big business, which is increasingly controlled by liberal elites.

Ironically his performance at the hearing was feminine. It was almost as if he was coached by a man who wears makeup.

x-cluded wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Hard to believe most of these folks are legally adults.

That certainly excludes you.

Yea so says Mr. Legally Blind.

Lol dwumpf wrote:

One thing we can all agree on is Kavanaugh doesn’t give a flying f*ck about the “forgotten man”. Trump likes him because he’s been in touch with Trump’s lawyers and will oppose any efforts to indict trump and his family. He will vote in favor of big business, which is increasingly controlled by liberal elites.

Ironically his performance at the hearing was feminine. It was almost as if he was coached by a man who wears makeup.

Hum, interesting. Not sure what to make of this one. One of the oddest comments yet.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

x-cluded wrote:

That certainly excludes you.

Yea so says Mr. Legally Blind.

Maybe one day you will grow up. Most likely not.

You guys, this is just a job interview. In any other interview, if a candidate were asked "Do you get blackout drunk?" And he responds with "DO YOU?" "Do you like beer? What's YOUR drink of choice? He'd be out just for being a run of the mill jerk no one wants to be deal with.

x-cluded wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Yea so says Mr. Legally Blind.

Maybe one day you will grow up. Most likely not.

Yes, graduated useful idiot, and charter member of the Surfing Psycholgy Club .

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Little Rocket Man wrote:

You are just the kind of lawyer that Kim Jong Un needs. Presuming any and all accused as "guilty."

Move to NK.

Don’t you just have to chuckle sometimes. Hard to believe most of these folks are legally adults.

Are your medications having behavioral side effects? Some sort of mania? Used to have respect for you and your running, even though I may not have always agreed with you on things running out outside the sport. But you seem to have been on a tear lately with shrill and prolific posting all over this forum and you seem unable to accept any difference of opinion to your own.

How about a dose of humility and chill for a while? Can you do that? Or are you going to just continue being a strident gadfly and troll?

notofficial wrote:

You guys, this is just a job interview. In any other interview, if a candidate were asked "Do you get blackout drunk?" And he responds with "DO YOU?" "Do you like beer? What's YOUR drink of choice? He'd be out just for being a run of the mill jerk no one wants to be deal with.

Why did no one ask queenie the same questions? Afraid to put little Dr. Ford eight year old phony baby voice under stress. Oh, how dare you do that to such a credible woman.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

notofficial wrote:

You guys, this is just a job interview. In any other interview, if a candidate were asked "Do you get blackout drunk?" And he responds with "DO YOU?" "Do you like beer? What's YOUR drink of choice? He'd be out just for being a run of the mill jerk no one wants to be deal with.

Why did no one ask queenie the same questions? Afraid to put little Dr. Ford eight year old phony baby voice under stress. Oh, how dare you do that to such a credible woman.

She's not applying for that position or any position. The point is not whether he did it or not. The point is no one wants to share a cubicle space with him.

I will make my floor vote prediction now (before the FBI investigation is completed):

54-46 "yea" to confirm (a couple red state dems will go against the party line to preserve their seats, I am confidant that Manchin will be one of those dems)

Ok libs, make your vote predictions.

I disagree .... wrote:

Again, if you don't know anything, then you must not have been watching his testimony.

Christine Blasey Ford testified only about what happened to her, not about any other of the women who've come forth, and who have not been allowed to testify. In addition, (1) Christine Blasey Ford's testimony is credible ...

Ford's testimony is anything but credible. Here is a list of everything she has changed in her story:

- Year of the party (from mid 80's to 82)

- Her age (late teens to 15)

- How many people were at the party (from 5 to 6)

- Location of the party

- Layout and interior of the house of the party

What is interesting is that each one of these changed for a very specific reason. Every time she realized her story can be disproven she changes it.

This is not to mention all the oddities of the story like how her friend says she never met Kavanaugh or remembers the party even though she was a sophomore who apparently was left alone with 4 senior guys. She never thought to ask her friend, "Hey where did you go last night, why did you leave me there alone?".

Ford also puts a big emphasis that on the things that she wanted people listening to her testimony to notice. And ironically the things that she put emphasis on were all to support things that she changed from her original story. One of those was the emphasis on Safeway and Mark Judge . It was part of her story change that the party happened in 82 and not mid-80's so she emphasized Mark Judge at Safeway so that people would think her story lined up with the year. Mark Judge had written in his book that he was working at the grocery store over the summer in 82, she knows this and used it in her testimony so everyone would forget that she originally said mid-80's. She also realized that in her original story that all of the people she had named lived too far away from the country club and from her house. She did live near it, so she changes her story to add a 4th boy who she doesn't remember and places the house in between her home and the country club so it is close enough to walk home. There are a few other emphasis like this, all of them strategically placed to cover the changes in her story.

She is blatantly lying here to make sure her story can be disproven and people are starting to catch on.

Take a time out wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Don’t you just have to chuckle sometimes. Hard to believe most of these folks are legally adults.

Are your medications having behavioral side effects? Some sort of mania? Used to have respect for you and your running, even though I may not have always agreed with you on things running out outside the sport. But you seem to have been on a tear lately with shrill and prolific posting all over this forum and you seem unable to accept any difference of opinion to your own.

How about a dose of humility and chill for a while? Can you do that? Or are you going to just continue being a strident gadfly and troll?

Hum, let me see: 1) no medications, 2) I don’t find agreement as a qualifier for anything, 3) yes, I admit to being on a posting tear, 4) facts and opinions fall into different categories, and 5) OK you sin, if someone calls me a liar or rapist in the future I will no longer say that either of their parents wears army boots.

Some interesting things about the extension of this vote and the election getting closer and closer.

It seems like Arizona Republican Jeff Flake got a one week extension, which Democrats love.

He is not a moderate. He is very conservative. He wants Kavanaugh confirmed.

He chose to retire instead of running for re-election because he couldn’t side with Trump’s current Republican Party.

The Republican nominee for his seat is a women.

The AZ Democrat nominee is a woman.

Whichever party wins Arizona could be the deciding spot to determine which party controls the Senate.

If Kavanaugh gets confirmed, that could inspire more Democrats to vote in anger.

If Kavanaugh goes down, that could inspire more Republicans to vote in anger.

And Flake’s actions will have a big influence over which way this turns.

Many levels of irony are possible.

wejo wrote:

House of cards wrote:

This is interesting. Read this thread. It’s a long one, but worth it. Mark Judge’s book, her timeline, the Safeway encounter, the missing two year gap between high school and college in the therapists notes....

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1046219137285070848

Not totally following the thread, but wish they had turned over her notes, and think Feinstein not questioning Kavanaugh even private means she was more concerned about a hit than anything else, but I still expect Kavanaugh to answer truthfully. High school terms are most troubling to me.

**

Find it interesting how people even view that Vox article on non answers/evasive answers differently.

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.

What a load of feces. "That doesn't disprove her claims?" No one has to "disprove" an accuser's claims. The accuser has to prove them. Stating otherwise is intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient.

Wondering about this and if it matters wrote:

Melania T wrote:

Melania was undocumented before she married Trump.

Meh. She says she wasn’t and she’s a woman, so I believe her

Wud up Flagpole.

Boom! Feinstein's office to be investigated about leaked letter and Tom Cotton announced that he’s turning over Ford’s lawyers to the D.C. Bar Association to be investigated for not disclosing that the Senate was willing to travel to CA to meet with Ford, proving once again that this was nothing but a stall tactic.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/30/cotton-feinstein-ford-leaked-letter-854019

Classmate of Kavanaugh’s, now prof at NC State.

“ Mr. Ludington said that Judge Kavanaugh had played down “the degree and frequency” of his drinking, and that the judge had often become “belligerent and aggressive” while intoxicated. Other former classmates have made similar claims.”

Like I said before, dude was a messy and belligerent drunk. Shouldn’t have lied about it under oath.

Slow your roll wrote:

wejo wrote:

Not totally following the thread, but wish they had turned over her notes, and think Feinstein not questioning Kavanaugh even private means she was more concerned about a hit than anything else, but I still expect Kavanaugh to answer truthfully. High school terms are most troubling to me.

**

Find it interesting how people even view that Vox article on non answers/evasive answers differently.

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.

What a load of feces. "That doesn't disprove her claims?" No one has to "disprove" an accuser's claims. The accuser has to prove them. Stating otherwise is intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient.

Here ya go peabrain.