Kavanaugh

1…2122242627…105

Comments

  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    mrussel1 said:
    oftenreading said:
    mrussel1 said:
    CM189191 said:

    What does that mean, sided with him? Wasn't he on the court of appeals 6 years ago?  Was there an actual case before the court?
    Yes. 

    Here is more information. 

    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-07-30/kavanaugh-sided-with-trump-casino-in-2012-to-thwart-union-drive
     
    Thanks,  it was a good read.  I'm not sure I'd call that corruption.  
    I do, people get hung up on specifics too much when it comes to corruption and conspiracy.
    The rich and powerful protect the rich and powerful and do each other factors knowing that the others have their backs.  Kavanaugh didn't need a crystal ball to see Trump as POTUS in the future, he ruled in favour of money every single chance he got, knowing that it would pay off.  That's corrupt.
     I'm sure this isn't the first payoff, just the biggest.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    mickeyrat said:
    his sit down with fox should be disqualifying
    I thought the same thing, are our SCOTUS judges going to be on the talk circuit now?  If the Fox News presidency has it's way, they will.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 42,369
    rgambs said:
    mickeyrat said:
    his sit down with fox should be disqualifying
    I thought the same thing, are our SCOTUS judges going to be on the talk circuit now?  If the Fox News presidency has it's way, they will.
    They already are. See Thomas, Clarence. Wife of same. See also Roberts, John. 73-0. Whitehouse, Sheldon: Roberts Five, Cavanaugh Hearings Opening Statement.

    The fix is in.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,532
      https://abc7news.com/amp/politics/brett-kavanaughs-yale-roommate-says-he-believes-second-accuser/4330055/?__twitter_impression=true

    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Gern Blansten
    Gern Blansten Mar-A-Lago Posts: 22,250
    cincybearcat said:
    CM189191 said:

    Yup everyone knew 6 years ago that Trump would eventually be president. This stuff is soooo stupid 
    uh....it's the payback dude
    Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
    The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
    2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
  • mfc2006
    mfc2006 HTOWN Posts: 37,491
    What a clusterfuck. Par for the course when the Orange idiot is involved.
    I LOVE MUSIC.
    www.cluthelee.com
    www.cluthe.com
  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 42,369
    For those complaining about the process and the timing of the women coming forward, don’t forget the document dump, over a million pages, the day before the vote. Lay the blame where it squarely lies, with the D team of Team Trump Treason. If it’s not obvious for why Kavanaugh was selected and a thorough vetting process wasn’t conducted, it should be.

    #thefixisin #standuptostupid
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,840
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    For those complaining about the process and the timing of the women coming forward, don’t forget the document dump, over a million pages, the day before the vote. Lay the blame where it squarely lies, with the D team of Team Trump Treason. If it’s not obvious for why Kavanaugh was selected and a thorough vetting process wasn’t conducted, it should be.

    #thefixisin #standuptostupid
    You know, like with guns, their should be a mandatory waiting period on investigating a candidate for Supreme Court prior to a vote.

    It's crazy to think we have to cram this in...other than due to political reasons.  
    hippiemom = goodness
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,532
    have heard an idea floated. 18 yr terms for scotus. new justice every 2 years. worthy of consideration.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    mickeyrat said:
    have heard an idea floated. 18 yr terms for scotus. new justice every 2 years. worthy of consideration.
    I like it.  
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,521
    never understood the intelligence of a lifetime appoitment anyway. 

    what I don't get is why anyone would give credence to his friends who say he is "of impeccable character" and treated women with dignity. so fucking what? they don't know what he's like when he gets a vulnerable woman alone. anyone could be a choir boy in the living room and a monster in the bedroom. 
    By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.




  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,521
    oftenreading said:
    cincybearcat said:
    CM189191 said:

    Yup everyone knew 6 years ago that Trump would eventually be president. This stuff is soooo stupid 
    Why would you take that tack? No one is claiming that they knew Trump would be president. That does not mean that Kavanaugh may not have been given the nod for this nomination as a reward. Surely you’re not naive enough to think this couldn’t occur. 
    it might be that, but it also might be the idea that he could overturn roe v wade. did any of the other conservative considerations for the nomination say they would be willing to vote against it?
    By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.




  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    oftenreading said:
    cincybearcat said:
    CM189191 said:

    Yup everyone knew 6 years ago that Trump would eventually be president. This stuff is soooo stupid 
    Why would you take that tack? No one is claiming that they knew Trump would be president. That does not mean that Kavanaugh may not have been given the nod for this nomination as a reward. Surely you’re not naive enough to think this couldn’t occur. 
    it might be that, but it also might be the idea that he could overturn roe v wade. did any of the other conservative considerations for the nomination say they would be willing to vote against it?

    I have no idea, and I don't think we would know that as I suspect that (a) we don't find out who else was under consideration, and (b) we don't find out what their opinions are on such matters until they face confirmation hearings.

    I'm also not sure what that has to do with my comment. I'm not saying that Kavanaugh definitely got the nomination as a quid pro quo, only that it's a possible reason for the nomination that suggests corruption without having to bring time travel into it.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,521
    oftenreading said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    oftenreading said:
    cincybearcat said:
    CM189191 said:

    Yup everyone knew 6 years ago that Trump would eventually be president. This stuff is soooo stupid 
    Why would you take that tack? No one is claiming that they knew Trump would be president. That does not mean that Kavanaugh may not have been given the nod for this nomination as a reward. Surely you’re not naive enough to think this couldn’t occur. 
    it might be that, but it also might be the idea that he could overturn roe v wade. did any of the other conservative considerations for the nomination say they would be willing to vote against it?

    I have no idea, and I don't think we would know that as I suspect that (a) we don't find out who else was under consideration, and (b) we don't find out what their opinions are on such matters until they face confirmation hearings.

    I'm also not sure what that has to do with my comment. I'm not saying that Kavanaugh definitely got the nomination as a quid pro quo, only that it's a possible reason for the nomination that suggests corruption without having to bring time travel into it.
    I know you weren't suggesting it as fact. I was just saying I thought his nomination had more to do with his stance on social issues and what, if anything, the supreme court might have to do Trump's potential removal/prosecution. 
    By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.




  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 9,831
    edited September 2018
    dignin said:
    mrussel1 said:
    cincybearcat said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ^to disqualify him?
    with one accuser? at least some type of investigation. or at least fucking speaking to the person. 

    with 4, if that's what we're up to now? pretty much nothing. when you get into multiples, I don't see the chances of him being innocent as being anywhere near possible. 
    I agree with this. If he still maintains his innocence I think he should sit there and listen to his accusers. But the burden of proof goes way down once several people report the same behavior. And if I were a senator, I wouldn’t be able to vote for him. 
    Right, but say it's just one person.  What is the burden of proof?  Is it "believable", "preponderance of the evidence", "beyond a reasonable doubt"?  If you were on taht committee, voting for someone to be a SCOTUS for life (not go to jail, not lose your job), what is the burden?  For me, it's believable.  I think it's a fairly low bar for the accuser to cross.  The position is too important.  It is essentially the most important long term job in the country. 
    This is where I'm at.

    I find both women who have forward so far credible and believable.
    I was reading about the second women, and that is definitely not the case. She admits being unsure it was Kavanaugh, is said to have contact friends asking if they remember it. Says the whole night is hazey, and that she believes it could have been Kavanaugh, but admits she dosent even remember. 

    The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/23/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-testify.html

    Thats not my definition of reliable and credible.

    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • CM189191
    CM189191 Posts: 6,927
    mickeyrat said:
    have heard an idea floated. 18 yr terms for scotus. new justice every 2 years. worthy of consideration.

    Or just add more justices?
  • CM189191
    CM189191 Posts: 6,927

  • CM189191
    CM189191 Posts: 6,927
    RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
    Where was that article/meme found, Facebook? Jesus.

    as far as Kavanaugh goes, it seems shady on both sides, so im interested in seeing what comes from the hearing on Thursday.  I want to believe Ford because I don’t trust the powerful or the elite, but when the NYTimes writes an article about a new accuser yesterday that basically discredits the accuser because they can’t find a single corroborating piece of evidence out of the hundreds of sources and leads they check...and then the accuser herself isn’t sure if it was even Kavanaugh or if he was even there .... but they STILL write the fucking article so they can add an “accuser” to the list??? Jesus Christ, NYT you guys look so so dumb and you’ve pushed
    me back into the “I don’t know” camp.  I can TOTALLY see this being a pile of shit and he didn’t do anything at all.  More filthy politics?  More filthy men? I look forward to finding out.

    textbook definition of how disinformation works

    overwhelm the people with so many versions of the 'truth' that it doesn't matter what 'truth' means anymore.
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    mace1229 said:
    dignin said:
    mrussel1 said:
    cincybearcat said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ^to disqualify him?
    with one accuser? at least some type of investigation. or at least fucking speaking to the person. 

    with 4, if that's what we're up to now? pretty much nothing. when you get into multiples, I don't see the chances of him being innocent as being anywhere near possible. 
    I agree with this. If he still maintains his innocence I think he should sit there and listen to his accusers. But the burden of proof goes way down once several people report the same behavior. And if I were a senator, I wouldn’t be able to vote for him. 
    Right, but say it's just one person.  What is the burden of proof?  Is it "believable", "preponderance of the evidence", "beyond a reasonable doubt"?  If you were on taht committee, voting for someone to be a SCOTUS for life (not go to jail, not lose your job), what is the burden?  For me, it's believable.  I think it's a fairly low bar for the accuser to cross.  The position is too important.  It is essentially the most important long term job in the country. 
    This is where I'm at.

    I find both women who have forward so far credible and believable.
    I was reading about the second women, and that is definitely not the case. She admits being unsure it was Kavanaugh, is said to have contact friends asking if they remember it. Says the whole night is hazey, and that she believes it could have been Kavanaugh, but admits she dosent even remember. 

    The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/23/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-testify.html

    Thats not my definition of reliable and credible.

    Again, the story was broken in the New Yorker, so if you want the details then read that story. 

    Second, it’s misleading to say she wasn’t sure if it was him. She said that when the penis was exposed in front of her face she wasn’t sure it was him because she couldn’t see him, but right after she clearly saw him in front of her zipping up his pants, and she could hear people calling him by name. 
     
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,884
    Yes,  it's annoying that people are reading summaries from other publications rather than the New Yorker.  The article was exhaustive,  detailed, and included its own skepticism where corroboration could not be found.  It really is a first class article. 

Categories