Official Brett Kavanaugh confirmation thread

Hardloper wrote:

Harambe wrote:

Midterms are always less than 2 years away. If Gorsuch had been a bad dude they would have brought it up and you'd still be butthurt about it.

But no -- like most people he's a good guy and got confirmed with minimal drama. This isn't hard to see folks.

The Democrats' anger over the Gorusch seat is one reason they think they have the right to steal a seat with their dirty tactics.

The Republican's stole a nomination from Obama in 2016. I guess, you know, payback's a b!tch.

Except Kavanaugh will probably be confirmed. And even if he isn't, they're just gonna put some other dumb conservative troglodyte on the nomination. Democrats can't stall till 2021.

Kavanaugh, Schmavanaugh wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

In regards to Kavanaugh as a judge I have no opinion. My anger is all about the charade of the Dr. Ford allegation process and the phony games of the Democratic justice committe members. I imagine I am not alone in changing my view to vote next month from Democrat to Republican.

The number of people believing that you were going to vote Democrat is the same as the number of people who believe Kavanaugh's lies about Devil's Triangle, boofing, the Beach Week Ralph Club, and his esteem for Renate Schroeder.

Greater than 50%, I’ll go with that.

I know that it's all about blocking Kavanaugh because of his ideology, that's the problem. I would never want a pick by either party or any ideology blocked due to an allegation with no evidence. That is a terrible precedent to set which will also ruin his life in other ways.

Flaggy Loses Again wrote:

I believe!!!! wrote:

I accept Flagpole's apology for everyone else.

Dude’s bluff got called.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Kavanaugh, Schmavanaugh wrote:

The number of people believing that you were going to vote Democrat is the same as the number of people who believe Kavanaugh's lies about Devil's Triangle, boofing, the Beach Week Ralph Club, and his esteem for Renate Schroeder.

Greater than 50%, I’ll go with that.

So you're voting for your house and senate candidates based on the actions of uninvolved members of congress?

Real sense of civic duty you have there.

Politics as a team sport, eyeroll.

Racket wrote:

The Republican's stole a nomination from Obama in 2016. I guess, you know, payback's a b!tch.

Refreshing honesty...

Hardloper wrote:

I know that it's all about blocking Kavanaugh because of his ideology, that's the problem. I would never want a pick by either party or any ideology blocked due to an allegation with no evidence. That is a terrible precedent to set which will also ruin his life in other ways.

Blocking due to ideology -- where has this happened before? Stop the pearl clutching lmao

Harambe wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

I know that it's all about blocking Kavanaugh because of his ideology, that's the problem. I would never want a pick by either party or any ideology blocked due to an allegation with no evidence. That is a terrible precedent to set which will also ruin his life in other ways.

Blocking due to ideology -- where has this happened before? Stop the pearl clutching lmao

I have no problem with attempting to block a judge's nomination due to his ideology as long as you're honest about it.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Laugh at iggggggy! wrote:

Poor aggrieved white guys.

Triggered!

Poor aggrieved SJW still wanting someone to write-off his student loans. Moving up at Starbucks from barista yet?

Lol you old dotard!

First thing you shouldn’t degrade a person’s employment status.

Second, I have advanced degrees and have over 20 years of professional experience directly related to my field of study.

But at the beginning and end of the day you are a buffoon and a blowhard who just can’t seem to shut up. Almost as mental as DiscoGary.

Hardloper wrote:

Harambe wrote:

Blocking due to ideology -- where has this happened before? Stop the pearl clutching lmao

I have no problem with attempting to block a judge's nomination due to his ideology as long as you're honest about it.

Ok so it's not really a dramatic precedent to set then if you're basically OK with it.

Just trying to cut down on the DRAMA some people on this thread bring. You'd think everything was the cuban missile crisis

Harambe wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

I have no problem with attempting to block a judge's nomination due to his ideology as long as you're honest about it.

Ok so it's not really a dramatic precedent to set then if you're basically OK with it.

Just trying to cut down on the DRAMA some people on this thread bring. You'd think everything was the cuban missile crisis

And lol @ being honest about it. There's almost nothing honest about politics. Like I said, a lot of people have been wanting Democrats to play hardball for a long time instead of letting Republican's steam roll them and steal Supreme Court nominations.

But,but Gorsuch. Its another whataboutism from the libs. Its getting old and it doesn't work. Your anger is ugly and its killing you slowly.

Getting OldBrah wrote:

But,but Gorsuch. Its another whataboutism from the libs. Its getting old and it doesn't work. Your anger is ugly and its killing you slowly.

You don't know what whataboutism is lmao. Stop using words you learned on tv

Hardloper wrote:

Refreshing honesty...

Something you are bigly incapable of.

Hardloper wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Why can't you find me someone who understands human memory that thinks mistaken identity is possible in Dr. Ford's case?

We've seen lots of memory experts say that Dr. Ford would definitely remember her attacker. Can't you find even one expert who supports your mistaken identity theory?

What's unique about Dr. Ford's case? I gave you examples of misidentifications even by victims of assault. The difference in Dr. Ford's case is supposed to be that she knew her attacker well. But that's circular logic and assumes her attacker was Kavanaugh and not someone mistaken as him, and it assumes she knew him well, which is disputable.

It's not unique at all. It's the same as the thousands of women who are attacked by people they know. They don't misidentify the attacker.

Dr. Ford only needed to know him well enough to recognize him. From her testimony, she clearly did.

She saw both him and Mark Judge downstairs before the attack and testified that there were very few people in the house. She easily recognized the people in the room where she was attacked. Neither has a twin.

Your layman's interpretation of layman's articles that really don't address the question simply don't count for squat.

According to memory researchers who have talked about it publicly, there is no way she would misidentify Kavanaugh. Zero experts who understand this stuff believe that mistaken identity is possible for Dr. Ford.

If there were an expert who could put forward a credible mistaken identity theory, that person could cash in on Fox News. That expert apparently does not exist.

rib nerd wrote:

Does anyone else wish Trump had just nominated Amy Coney Barrett instead? I think she would have made a better justice and would have been much easier to get through the nomination process.

She's a woman, and he wouldn't nominate a woman.

Fat hurts wrote:

What's unique about Dr. Ford's case? I gave you examples of misidentifications even by victims of assault. The difference in Dr. Ford's case is supposed to be that she knew her attacker well. But that's circular logic and assumes her attacker was Kavanaugh and not someone mistaken as him, and it assumes she knew him well, which is disputable.

It's not unique at all. It's the same as the thousands of women who are attacked by people they know. They don't misidentify the attacker.

Dr. Ford only needed to know him well enough to recognize him. From her testimony, she clearly did.

She saw both him and Mark Judge downstairs before the attack and testified that there were very few people in the house. She easily recognized the people in the room where she was attacked. Neither has a twin.

Your layman's interpretation of layman's articles that really don't address the question simply don't count for squat.

According to memory researchers who have talked about it publicly, there is no way she would misidentify Kavanaugh. Zero experts who understand this stuff believe that mistaken identity is possible for Dr. Ford.

If there were an expert who could put forward a credible mistaken identity theory, that person could cash in on Fox News. That expert apparently does not exist.[/quote]

If I'm understanding you correctly you're saying misidentificaton would be impossible in almost all cases, but we know it happens. Dr. Elizabeth Loftus is one expert who has at least admitted it is possible.

Hardloper wrote:

It's not unique at all.

Wow ... look at the FAKE psychology expert.