Lessons to be learned from the Kavanaugh Hearing

[Ziggurat]

Utter BS.

Not exactly a compelling counter-argument.

 

[acbytesla]

You say that like you know he committed perjury. But you don’t actually know that.

I know with a 98 percent certainty he committed perjury. His own calendars show he was not honest.
And I believe anyone evaluating his testimony critically against the facts would come to the same conclusion. His choir boy act went against all the available evidence.

He said he had never attended parties similar to the party described by Dr. Ford yet his own calendars betray that.
He said that Dr. Ford did not travel in the same circles, yet she was dating his friend 'Squi' Chris Garrett the summer of 1982.

Kavanaugh also admitted in a separate Sept. 17 committee interview that he was friends with Holton-Arms girls. “I would imagine that there were Holton-Arms girls [at parties] on occasion, and I was friends with a couple,”

He said boofing was flatulence. It is anal sex or taking drugs anally. He said the Devils Triangle was a drinking game when in fact it is a threesome with two guys. He lied about documents stolen from the Democrats. He lied about how much he drank. He lied about 'Beach Week Ralph Club' where Kavanaugh said it his weak stomach. Does anyone actually believe this was not about alcohol?

He said he busted his tail and didn't have connections at Yale. But his grandfather graduated from Yale. Yale reports that 25 percent of its admissions go to legacy students.

Kavanaugh’s friend Judge wrote a book titled “Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk,” in which a character named Bart O’Kavanaugh (sound familiar?) vomits on someone’s car during Beach Week and passes out.

Kavanaugh denied that he was the inspiration for O’Kavanaugh. “He wrote a book that is a fictionalized book,” he said in his hearing.

But a note at the beginning of Judge’s book states, “This book is based on actual experiences.”

There were other lies. See.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-lies_us_5bb26190e4b027da00d61fcd

 

[Lambchops]

Not exactly a compelling counter-argument.

I'd say we're about even.

 

[Ziggurat]

I know with a 98 percent certainty he committed perjury.

What statement do you think was perjury?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Women are incentivised to lie about sexual assault.

What exactly is Ford getting out of this? What is her incentive?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'd say we're about even.

There is no “we” here. You and I are not having an argument. You just tried to heckle an argument other people were having.

 

[Ziggurat]

What exactly is Ford getting out of this? What is her incentive?

Taking down Kavanaugh. Possibly making money like Anita Hill did. Becoming a liberal hero. Could be a number of things.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What statement do you think was perjury?

Don't do that. Don't pretend like 2 or 3 threads, some going back over a week now haven't happened and are still ongoing.

You can disagree with people's opinion that Kavanaugh has committed perjury (dammit brain stop changing that to "permitting perjury" when you type) but don't just do the whole "I'm going to ask to repeat the entire ongoing discussion" stalling tactic.

The discussion is already ongoing. Don't act like we just started it and people still need to present their case.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Taking down Kavanaugh. Possibly making money like Anita Hill did. Becoming a liberal hero. Could be a number of things.

Okay the "Evil man-hating woman" character doesn't really fit this story.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Don't do that. Don't pretend like 2 or 3 threads, some going back over a week now haven't happened and are still ongoing.

You can disagree with people's opinion that Kavanaugh has committed perjury (dammit brain stop changing that to "permitting perjury" when you type) but don't just do the whole "I'm going to ask to repeat the entire ongoing discussion" stalling tactic.

The discussion is already ongoing. Don't act like we just started it and people still need to present their case.

You typed all of that to avoid typing a single statement that you think constituted perjury?

 

[JoeMorgue]

You typed all of that to avoid typing a single statement that you think constituted perjury?

And you typed that instead of... nothing. Your point?

 

[Trebuchet]

I know with a 98 percent certainty he committed perjury. And I believe anyone evaluating his testimony critically against the facts would come to the same conclusion. His choir boy act went against all the available evidence.

I'd say we're about even.

You are arguing with a poster who spent an extensive period of time claiming he had proof Obama is a thin-skinned narcissist and refusing to provide a shred of evidence. It's futile.

 

[Minoosh]

I think it was more gradual. Some Republicans still refer to rejecting an SC nomination as "getting Borked", a reference to Robert Bork's failed nomination in 1987.

It was more gradual, but Democrats did not politicize the appointments of Kennedy and Scalia at all. Even on Bork, there were crossover votes on both sides.

Things are very bad right now; both sides bear blame, but one side bears much more blame than the other.

And both sides probably agree with you

 

[Brainster]

I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the lesson everybody learned from this is that the other side is completely mendacious, while their side is too noble to get down in the gutter and slog it out with the liars.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It was more gradual, but Democrats did not politicize the appointments of Kennedy and Scalia at all. Even on Bork, there were crossover votes on both sides.

It is odd (and in my opinion disheartening) that prior to... the last couple of years the SCOTUS remained the most... well "neutral" isn't the term I'm looking for but "most willing to break from the pack" is close-ish. Both "sides" appointed Judges only to have them go against their grain at least once or twice on big issues.

And it was probably the last place in American politics where "Conservative = Republican" and "Liberal = Democrat" wasn't pretty much always the case.

 

[theprestige]

I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the lesson everybody learned from this is that the other side is completely mendacious, while their side is too noble to get down in the gutter and slog it out with the liars.

I didn't learn that lesson, and I don't even agree with it.

 

[quadraginta]

You have that exactly backwards. It is exclusively the Democrats, not Republicans, who launch these vicious personal attacks against judicial nominees. The Democrats whined endlessly (and to this day) about Republicans blocking Garland, but the Republicans never said one bad thing about Garland himself. The toxicity comes from an abandonment of constitutional principles, not from adherence to them.

The Republicans made certain that they didn't have to say anything about Garland at all, so your claim is a truism. If they had been willing to even consider his nomination it would be different. But they weren't, and they didn't.

If you are trying to suggest there is some basis for comparison you are either being disingenuous or you are very confused.

 

[Lambchops]

There is no “we” here. You and I are not having an argument. You just tried to heckle an argument other people were having.

That's adorable.

 

[quadraginta]

Yeah but... cards all on the table here... for all practical purposes all of our political discourse being nothing but a long game of "You said that then, now you say this now" kind of got stale for me a long time ago.

People are gonna protect their tribes. This should not be shocking to anyone at this point.

And 99 times out of a 100 "OMG this side protected Bill but attacked Ted and the other side attacked Ted but protected Bill when they both did the same thing!" just means both Bill and Ted... are just awful.

We need to get out of this loop, bad. We are stuck in. Meaningful, influential people both in the leadership and in the trenches of both "sides" are going to have to sucking it up and doing what's best for the country even if it means not returning a childish jab the other side landed.

There is no basis for comparison. The GOP has demonstrably and categorically abandoned just about every value they have ever laid claim to. (They might have missed a couple, but I can't think of what they might be.)

They haven't even bothered to pretend otherwise. They now seem to think it is some sort of virtue.

As false equivalencies go, your assertion is a whopper.

 

[Belz...]

That's just pathetic. It's got nothing to do with any attitude towards women.

And yet somehow it's the woman who gets disbelieved. So yeah, the question is raised. Maybe it's not the case for you, but damn if it comes back often.

Women are incentivised to lie about sexual assault.

Citation needed -- but not forthcoming.

The sexism comes from thinking that women are intrinsically honest and men are not.

Who in the world thinks this? Oh, that's right; no one. That right there is part of what raised my question.

You are confused. Overturning Roe v Wade would not overturn any abortion laws, rather it would permit laws that were previously overturned.

That's a distinction without a difference, and just more evasion by you.

The claims of perjury are very weak

A lie's a lie.

and the characterisation of his response to mistreatment as a conspiracy theory is Kafkaesque.

Zig do you think you could for one solitary second let go of your reflexive defense of everything conservative/Republican and tell me if, had Garland blathered about "payback for the Bushes" as the reason for his troubles with the Senate, you wouldn't think him more than a bit cooky?

He said right there that it was payback for the Clintons. What in the blue **** does that even mean? That was an unhinged statement by him.

What statement do you think was perjury?

You know, for someone who's dead-convinced that Ford lied or is mistaken, you sure seemed to have missed the lies that Kavanaugh uttered. It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that he's a Republican, right?