Kavanaugh

Merkin Baller

Tiki said:

July 1, 1982

Yup

"Skis"

brianlux

Tiki said:

Just like Trumpito...

Even if the assault allegations are untrue (they aren't) his temperament is completely unacceptable.

He will be impeached.   

For sure the man's general character is the biggest issue here with his nomination.  Although I object to the generalization of the term "male white privilege" which Graham uses here and the fact that I don't know much about the author here, what Graham says about patriarchal elitists says a lot:

"Looking at Brett Kavanagh, I think we’re seeing way more than a man who was once a privileged young lout who couldn’t hold his liquor and who’d never been taught respect for women. These Senate hearings are shining a national light on the entire system of white male patriarchy and privilege that is blind not only to assaults on women, but to the toxic effects of vicious inequalities in this country, the failure to spend enough on public goods, and a political system made dysfunctional by unchecked infusions of money.

So as you watch the Senate committee deal with the Kavanaugh nomination, don’t get caught in thinking that this is a simple he-said-she-said conundrum. It’s way more than that. It’s about whether or not this country will continue to elevate to the highest offices in the land the scions and beneficiaries of a badly broken system, men who have always had their way with money, power—and women."

https://www.johngraham.org/blog/the-kavanaugh-hearings#.W7GgLfErSUF.facebook

tempo_n_groove

Spiritual_Chaos said:

pjhawks said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

I don't know why the Republicans have such a hard-on for this guy. There has to be dozens of other qualified, conservative federal judges that aren't former beer-swilling bros that they can nominate. 

because admitting there were wrong would be a sign of weakness to them. they rather support sexual abusers than admit they fucked up. party before country.

He also seems to be very partisan. And some of them seem to know him personally (like Lindsey).

This has bothered me the most too.

In his opening statement he mentioned being on AF1 many times with all the Republican presidents and working for/with them.

njnancy

mace1229 said:

pjhawks said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

brianlux said:

The age of entitled white men is going to end.  They (or we since you could, I suppose, consider me an entitled white man but, damn, how I hate those all-encompassing labels) are in the minority on this small planet- both males and whites.

But while were at it, if we are going to admonish entitled white men we might well admonish entitled Americans, as even the poorest of us live like royalty compared to a poor peasant in Myanmar. Certainly those of us who can afford our electronic devices and high priced tickets to mega rock star concerts and drive our shiny beast vehicles.  Who among us here is not entitled?

Sorry, not meaning to cause offense, but I HATE labels!

If Kavanaugh is proven guilty, fuck him!  But don't pigeon hole all us white guys.  We aren't all motherfuckers and rapists.

Any father rapists amongst us? Thanksgiving is coming up.

This could be one of the dumbest comments I have ever read on this forum. Be better than this. 

C’mon McGruff, get the cultural reference and stop being so sensitive.

Father rapists is a cultural reference? Do explain and don’t be vague like your original sentence. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m57gzA2JCcM
 

No code is my favorite album but do me a favor and don’t talk in code.

Ha! Mine too. Would you have preferred a hissy fit as it was within a quote responding to someone else and was misconstrued as I had originally intended? Posters post in code all the time, lots of dog whistles for example. 
 

Just tell me like it is.  I don’t like Kavanaugh at all but I have a problem with someone coming out with a story 30 years later. That s me. If there was an altercation then report it so at least there is some sort of paper trail and maybe he ll think twice about doing it again. 
Listened to no code on vinyl today, pure bliss. 

wait aren't you a teacher and parent? seriously you can't understand a teenage girl hiding being sexually assaulted until years later?

The 30 years is one part that I don't question at all.
My brother was abused by a neighbor, several times over a period of about 2 years. It was 20 years before he told a single person about what happened. Even after years of counseling. It seemed like he changed over night, 9 years old at the time went from loving school to failing every subject, became violent, a cutter, multiple signs something was wrong. My parents paid for private counseling for years and nothing ever came out ever. It wasn't until his son was 9 years old (the same age he was) that be finally told someone for the first time.

How is your brother doing now? I hope that he is finally able to move forward though it will always be with him. The fact that he was triggered by his son being the same age makes so much sense. I truly hope he and your whole family are healing.

CM189191

cincybearcat

CM189191 said:

Not true. They’d believe their own daughter. Just not anyone else’s daughter.

Does show the hypocritical nature though 

njnancy

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

So I was thinking about his all morning and I have to admit that I was totally wrong on the Till comparison. Carry on. 

It's big of you to admit it.  Not easy to do....much respect.  

Thank you sir.

I agree, we would all do well to sit back and think on our positions on occasion. Classy move, refreshing. 

cincybearcat

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

pjhawks said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

I don't know why the Republicans have such a hard-on for this guy. There has to be dozens of other qualified, conservative federal judges that aren't former beer-swilling bros that they can nominate. 

because admitting there were wrong would be a sign of weakness to them. they rather support sexual abusers than admit they fucked up. party before country.

My impression is different. Its not about admitting fault. I'll admit I'm a republican, so many of you are just going to dismiss this anyway or take it with a grain of salt. 
But it is clear the Dems used this for political gain. No question about that, this was mishandled purposefully in a way to get the most exposure about 5 weeks before a major election. It was an attempt to stall the confirmation and publicize this for votes. I have no doubt of that. This could have been a closed hearing, kept private as Dr Ford wished. Someone on the democratic committee leaked her letter and name (not Dr Ford or her friends as Feinstein suggested, that's just stupid) when this could have been addressed 2 months ago.
Reports are now saying they did offer to fly the whole committee to CA for a hearing. Ford claims she would have accepted, but the offer and communication was not clear. The discussions were not made directly to Ford herself, but through Senators and lawyers. Seems very plausible, even likely this was intentionally to stall even further.
I don't believe Ford was a willing participant, but used instead.
I don't think republicans handled it very well either. Once they got wind of the accusations (6 weeks after the dems knew about it for what its worth) they could have done this very differently as well.
But my impression isn't that they have such a hard-on for this guy as much as making a point that they won't let the democratic tactics ruin their nomination. 
But if it was about women and sexual abuse, it is all about dragging the republican image through the mud weeks before the election, other this would have been handled differently. There was plenty of time to investigate without having to delay the nomination if acted on in a timely manner. They would not have sat on the information for 2 months then leaked it to the press. This wil still be a hot topic when the elections happen, and they is exactly what they wanted.

You're absolutely right that the Democrats held this issue in order to inflict maximum political damage, and arguably damage to the nomination itself.  I said much earlier that this was an extreme example of hardball politics.   But that doesn't mean he is deserving of the seat.  

Hard ball politics was not even holding committee hearings on Merrick Garland and keeping the seat vacant, without a committee or floor vote for 200+ days. Fuck the repubs and Mitch McConnel and Lindsey Graham in particular.
 

Both are examples of stupid hardball politics. Not voting on Obama’s nominee is an extreme example No doubt. Holding onto sexual assault allegations is not too far behind.

tempo_n_groove

This is an example of a meme being passed around FB...

kce8

tbergs said:

Found this today. A few of these are questionable, but the majority are overwhelmingly clear and show why this guy does not belong on the SCOTUS.

1. He lied about Devil's Triangle. A Devil's Triangle is two different kinds of sexual acts, involving either a threesome, or three types of sexual intercourse with one woman in one night. It is not a drinking game. He lied about this several times and his classmates have called him out.

2. He lied about "bouf," which refers to anal intercourse, and not flatulence. He doubled down on this lie several times during testimony.

3. He lied about "Renata Alumnius." That referred to him going on a date with the purported class "slut." It was not about being her friend (and she recently said she was horrified by his yearbook references.) His testimony directly contradicts a poem about Renata written by one of his close friends found in the same yearbook he refers to himself as a Renata Alumnius, portraying Renata as a cheap and sleazy date.

4. He lied that the "Beach Week Ralph Club," which refers to vomiting from drinking at a traditional beach week (which all the schools around here have--we all know the expression). He lied and said it referred to his weak stomach.

5. He lied under oath about not watching Ford's testimony. Today. Witnesses saw him watching it. The Wall Street Journal reported he was watching it with others in the Senate's Dirksen Office Building. There are many press stories on this.

6. He lied about not knowing about stolen emails from the Democratic members of the judicial committee. He knew the emails were stolen and confirmed it in the emails the Judicial Committee republicans tried to suppress. The Washington Post gave him three pinocchios for this lie.

7. He lied about witnesses supporting his claims. They did not support his claims as he characterized their testimony. They generally supplied brief statements through lawyers about not remembering the party. This was no testimony. This was no independent investigation.

8. More specifically, Ford and Kavanaugh's mutual friend Leland Kaiser says while she does not remember that party, but she believes everything her friend Ford said about it. She has stated this to the press and it came up in testimony today.

9. Kavanugh lied about his drinking. He drank a lot in the last year of high school and college (and several witnesses say he drank a lot for years afterwards). Several friends of mine who specialize in alcoholism said he exhibited signs of having drunk before this hearing. He was referred to by his college roommate as a sloppy and belligerent drunk. We saw glimpses of that belligerence today. Dozens of his contemporaries have confirmed how aggressive he becomes with drinking.

10. He lied that never drunk on weekdays in the summer of 1982. In his own calendar, he referred to "skis," which he admitted refer to "brewskis," with Mark and PJ on Thursday July 1 in a calendar entry that matches closely Ford's account. Most of the people in that list were the same mentioned by Ford in her testimony. He drank. On that Thursday night. After working out.

11. He lied about Judge not remembering what happened. Six weeks after the incident, probably mid-August 1982, Ford reported seeing Judge at the Potomac Safeway in River Road near where we live. Local newspapers have confirmed that Judge worked there at the time Ford said. No one has refuted her testimony that Judge was "nervous" and had "turned white." The committee is still refusing to interview or depose or subpoena Judge.

12. He lied that "100 kegs or bust" did not indicate a lot of drinking in 1982-3. He was part of a group endeavoring to drink 100 kegs that year, and his best friend became a serious alcoholic and admitted to sexual assault resembling this assault during that period to his girlfriend. His girlfriend was also not deposed by the committee.

13. He lied about Trump in the first line of his first press conference as nominee. He lied about Trump doing more vetting than for any other Supreme Court nominee in modern history. In fact, Trump vetted much much less than other modern President's, admittedly working from short lists provided by two conservative think tanks, which he announced in advance he would limit his choice to. Several books have confirmed that Trump spent little time on the vetting.

14. He lied that he is "open to any investigation." He is not and is actively participating in blocking the testimony of eye witness Mark Judge, his girlfiend, and other participants. Judge is hiding out in a beach house on the eastern shore and Judge being interviewed by the FBI. Kavanaugh is actively involved in strategizing about evidence suppression, at all day strategy meetings with Trump's lawyers.

15. He lied about the nature of Mark's book. He said that both it was part of his therapy and coming clean as an alcoholic and drug addict, and called the book "fictional." It can't be both a testimonial of a recovering alcoholic and fictional at the same time.

16. He refuses to answer the question again and again about whether or not there should be an investigation and whether or not his friend Mark Judge should be questioned, further belying that he is "open to investigation."

17. He is lying about whether he was the "Bart O'Kavanaugh" in Mark Judge's book. He knows the drunken and vomiting "O'Kavanaugh" is him.

18. He is lying about never having forgot anything about the night after a night of drinking. There are several testimonials from classmates to this effect.

19. He is lying that there is a conspiracy against him and that Ford's charges are trumped up and part of that conspiracy. The best evidence of no conspiracy is how his high school classmate Gorsuch--they were one year about apart at Georgetown Prep--was subject to no such conspiracy, in confirmation hearings just months ago. Gorsuch is honorable. Judge is lying.

20. Kavanaugh supporter Whelan helped concoct the story of other men taking credit for assaulting Ford. Whelan has deleted all of his tweets after being challenged on the completely bogus stories he was advancing by his colleagues. The dissembling tweets are gone.

Senator Blumenthal quoted the legal principle "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which is a legal principle that dictates jurors can rule a witness to be false in everything if he says one thing that is not true." If you believe any of the above is correct, you have to come to the conclusion that Kavanaugh is lying and should not be confirmed.

After such a list, you should NOT be able to work even as a normal judge anymore at all! Nowhere in this scene, no matter what happened to the sexual assault. 

Wrong ... just choose one of the points and he should be off immediately! WTF is wrong that Trump and his supporters can go that far? Not a single lie from a judge can be acceptable!

That guy has to go down, just already because of lying. 
I'm fearing he could get confirmed anyways, because he should already have long been rejected. 
This all is even more worse than that Trump is the president. 

Spiritual_Chaos

cincybearcat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

pjhawks said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

I don't know why the Republicans have such a hard-on for this guy. There has to be dozens of other qualified, conservative federal judges that aren't former beer-swilling bros that they can nominate. 

because admitting there were wrong would be a sign of weakness to them. they rather support sexual abusers than admit they fucked up. party before country.

My impression is different. Its not about admitting fault. I'll admit I'm a republican, so many of you are just going to dismiss this anyway or take it with a grain of salt. 
But it is clear the Dems used this for political gain. No question about that, this was mishandled purposefully in a way to get the most exposure about 5 weeks before a major election. It was an attempt to stall the confirmation and publicize this for votes. I have no doubt of that. This could have been a closed hearing, kept private as Dr Ford wished. Someone on the democratic committee leaked her letter and name (not Dr Ford or her friends as Feinstein suggested, that's just stupid) when this could have been addressed 2 months ago.
Reports are now saying they did offer to fly the whole committee to CA for a hearing. Ford claims she would have accepted, but the offer and communication was not clear. The discussions were not made directly to Ford herself, but through Senators and lawyers. Seems very plausible, even likely this was intentionally to stall even further.
I don't believe Ford was a willing participant, but used instead.
I don't think republicans handled it very well either. Once they got wind of the accusations (6 weeks after the dems knew about it for what its worth) they could have done this very differently as well.
But my impression isn't that they have such a hard-on for this guy as much as making a point that they won't let the democratic tactics ruin their nomination. 
But if it was about women and sexual abuse, it is all about dragging the republican image through the mud weeks before the election, other this would have been handled differently. There was plenty of time to investigate without having to delay the nomination if acted on in a timely manner. They would not have sat on the information for 2 months then leaked it to the press. This wil still be a hot topic when the elections happen, and they is exactly what they wanted.

You're absolutely right that the Democrats held this issue in order to inflict maximum political damage, and arguably damage to the nomination itself.  I said much earlier that this was an extreme example of hardball politics.   But that doesn't mean he is deserving of the seat.  

Hard ball politics was not even holding committee hearings on Merrick Garland and keeping the seat vacant, without a committee or floor vote for 200+ days. Fuck the repubs and Mitch McConnel and Lindsey Graham in particular.
 

Both are examples of stupid hardball politics. Not voting on Obama’s nominee is an extreme example No doubt. Holding onto sexual assault allegations is not too far behind.

LETS PLAY HARDBALL!

Spiritual_Chaos

tempo_n_groove said:

This is an example of a meme being passed around FB...

You're stealing Unsungs thunder. Not nice. 

njnancy

tempo_n_groove said:

This is an example of a meme being passed around FB...

I tracked this back to an anarchy poster on FB - here's Media Bias Fact Check's take on the people putting this out. 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/uncle-sams-misguided-children/

kce8

tempo_n_groove said:

This is an example of a meme being passed around FB...

Another painful stupidity!
I do not understand why that should change anything. This does not eliminate the fears or feelings of shame for the victims or anything else.
At this age, you realize the importance of what happened. You have to fear that your entire world will be turned upside down for your family too. And yes, you're right, that would happen.
That's exactly what's happening to her right now.

mrussel1

tempo_n_groove said:

This is an example of a meme being passed around FB...

So because her brother once worked for a huge, massive white shoe law firm that employs, probably 1000 lawyers at any given time, she lied in her testimony.  Makes perfect sense.  

njnancy

njnancy said:

tempo_n_groove said:

This is an example of a meme being passed around FB...

I tracked this back to an anarchy poster on FB - here's Media Bias Fact Check's take on the people putting this out. 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/uncle-sams-misguided-children/

Michael Savage is promoting this. Also being promoted by Alex Jones. This article from Media Matters goes through each of the allegations....

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/09/28/right-wing-conspiracy-theorists-now-claim-christine-blasey-ford-deeply-tied-cia/221505

Savage’s conspiracy theory makes three claims about Ford’s connections to the CIA, all of which are false or baseless:

1. The post claims that Ford “happens to head up the CIA undergraduate internship program at Stanford University.” This claim seems to originate from a conspiracy theory website, brassballs.blog, that drew this conclusion because Stanford does have an undergraduate CIA internship program, and Ford, who is a psychology professor at nearby Palo Alto University, is also listed as an “affiliate” in the “psychiatry and behavioral sciences” department at Stanford. The blog post argues that it is suspicious that Ford’s contact information has been deleted from her Stanford profile page, although the more likely explanation is that it has been removed due to the threats and harassment that Ford has received since coming forward.

2. The theory draws another connection between Ford and the CIA via her brother’s previous work for law firm BakerHostetler. A previous Ford-related conspiracy theory connected her brother’s work at BakerHostetler to Fusion GPS, a research firm involved in the ongoing Russian collusion investigation. However, Ford’s brother left BakerHostetler six years before Fusion GPS was ever founded. Savage’s conspiracy theory repeats this false claim and goes even further, claiming that three CIA-controlled businesses are located in the same building as BakerHostetler. There is no evidence these businesses are connected to the CIA -- in fact, one, Red Coats, Inc., is a janitorial company that does not even share office space with BakerHostetler.

3. Savage’s post also claims that Ford is the granddaughter of Nicholas Deak, who worked with the CIA during the Cold War. According to his 1985 Washington Post obituary, Deak only had one child, a son named R. Leslie Deak. But as the conspiracy theory’s second claim also notes, Ford’s father is actually Ralph Blasey Jr.

Savage’s false claim is rapidly spreading, and was promoted during Alex Jones’ September 28 broadcast. The conspiracy theory is also indicative of how search platforms like Google amplify such clear falsehoods. A Google search for “Christine Ford CIA” done in a private browsing window aggregated YouTube videos pushing the conspiracy theory and Savage’s website as the top results:

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

This is an example of a meme being passed around FB...

So because her brother once worked for a huge, massive white shoe law firm that employs, probably 1000 lawyers at any given time, she lied in her testimony.  Makes perfect sense.  

Dodododododododododo, you’re about to enter the Twighlight Zone.

josevolution

I don't care if it was 50 yrs ago i believe her he's the liar and corrupted judge ! ..

kce8

" I almost feel to wish bad things to those people!" 

dignin

After Watching Kavanaugh Hearing, Woman Decides to Name State Senator She Says Raped Her

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/joe-fain-rape-candace-faber.html