Discussion in 'Politics' started by Xelor, Sep 21, 2018.
Who might that witness be? The guy who also was accused, who has already denied the accusation?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
three words don't say much.
Who said that?
There are?! That's big news. Somebody better notify CNN.
Sounds more like accusations. Also, who should investigate?
Very funny. But with more than a grain of truth in it......
I find myself wondering what is going wrong with our decision-making recently. Partly the internet and the consequent "Emancipation of the Thick", as I call it. But also I wonder if we need some collective disaster to make us recover our political maturity. We've started to see politics as a branch of the entertainment business, rather than something that really makes a difference to our lives.
simple really. the problem with a race to the bottom is that you get to the bottom
So you don't know if you would hire someone as a cashier whose references said he was a thief?
Probably a good thing you don't do any hiring, then.
Nope. But it is hard proof you didn't make it up a few months ago for political reasons - which is what Kavanaugh has been claiming.
It's evidence that Kavanaugh went to a party intending to drink in the time frame Ford described.
His college roommate. He said that Kavanaugh often drank to excess, and became aggressive and belligerent when he did. He also supported Debbie Ramirez:
"Based on my time with Debbie, I believe her to be unusually honest and straightforward and I cannot imagine her making this up. Based on my time with Brett, I believe that he and his social circle were capable of the actions that Debbie described."
They did. The right wing has been calling them "fake news."
As Kittamaru noted, "the GOP won't allow any evidence," nor will they push for a proper investigation which might provide such evidence.
I've a better idea. How about stopping your obfuscation? How about a little intellectual honesty from you every once in a while?
If you have been following the Republican Party's behavior for the past few years, you can answer it for yourself.
There has been no FBI investigation of several of the matters indicated. It was blocked by the White House and Republican Congress.
It makes the claim of having spoken in the past true.
So you, also, want to see an FBI investigation of the accusations made by these three or four and counting women.
Meanwhile, did you see that hyper-partisan and angrily ranting speech Kavanaugh made? That's completely unfit for the Supreme Court.
Why not just reject him for the Court on that basis - save us all this garbage.
Among others, sure. Kavanaugh's friend, a blackout drunk with a dodgy reputation of his own,
who has not actually denied the whole scene, but rather claimed not to remember.
The kind of person one often must subpoena, since their moral and civic duty is so often self-incriminating.
Meanwhile, this is what the Republican Party was looking at during its speech on being persecuted by a leftwing conspiracy of Democrats trying to get back at Trump for beating that bitch (his former term) Hillary Clinton.
Apparently looking like that while angrily ranting about leftwing Democratic conspiracies and Hillary Clinton's defeat
during one's formal confirmation hearing, on the chamber floor,
is what Republicans regard as appropriate judicial temperament for the nations highest Court.
The latest breakover date that makes sense would be 1994. That was 24 years ago.
The financial Crash of 2008, Katrina, 9/11, and the Iraq War, were not sufficient.
Because the problem is not "we". The problem is the Republican Party, its corporate support, voting base, and media/intellectual wing. A collective disaster allows them to deflect responsibility - we need to destroy that movement, that organization, in particular.
The position of Supreme Court justice must be held by someone with the highest integrity. His refusal to admit that he is even capable of doing those things, even at his younger days, tells of a person who is dishonest with himself. Is such a person acceptable as a judge on the Supreme Court?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Okay, so, we both know to be careful when David Brock is around, but still.
First up, a random bit via Maddow↱, via Twitter a couple weeks ago, reminding that Judge Kavanaugh got his clerkship, way back when, with the now-disgraced Judge Kozinski, after his predecessor was fired. And then she went on to note↱, "the fired clerk, per Politico, was Trump HHS Secretary Alex Azar".
Of course it was.
And it just so happens that David Brock↱, all of five days earlier, wrote:
I describe him at a party full of zealous young conservatives gathered to watch President Bill Clinton's 1998 State of the Union address—just weeks after the story of his affair with a White House intern had broken. When the TV camera panned to Hillary Clinton, I saw Brett—at the time a key lieutenant of Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating various Clinton scandals—mouth the word "bitch" ....
.... Call it Kavanaugh's cabal: There was his colleague on the Starr investigation, Alex Azar, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mark Paoletta is now chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence; House anti-Clinton gumshoe Barbara Comstock is now a Republican member of Congress. Future Fox News personalities Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson were there with Ann Coulter, now a best-selling author, and internet provocateur Matt Drudge.
At one time or another, each of them partied at my Georgetown townhouse amid much booze and a thick air of cigar smoke ....
.... Another compatriot was George Conway (now Kellyanne's husband), who led a secretive group of right-wing lawyers—we called them "the elves"—who worked behind the scenes directing the litigation team of Paula Jones, who had sued Clinton for sexual harassment. I knew then that information was flowing quietly from the Jones team via Conway to Starr's office—and also that Conway's go-to man was none other than Brett Kavanaugh.
And why not pursue his line about the Clintons and revenge: Revenge for what? I wonder, though, if Democrats manage to win some Congressional authority, whether their left flank will want them to pursue those questions or tell them to move on to more important issues only to complain later that they didn't pursue those questions.
@maddow. "Interesting from Senator @ChrisCoons -- the reason Kavanaugh got his clerkship with (now resigned in disgrace) Judge Kozinski is because another clerk was reportedly fired, freeing up the spot. That's unusual. More unusual …". Twitter. 12 September 2018. Twitter.com. 28 September 2018. http://bit.ly/2y76W5J
—————. "… the fired clerk, per Politico, was Trump HHS Secretary Alex Azar. Here's Coons's question about that for Kavanaugh (highlighted below)." Twitter. 12 September 2018. Twitter.com. 28 September 2018. http://bit.ly/2OYkkQP
Brock, David. "I knew Brett Kavanaugh during his years as a Republican operative. Don't let him sit on the Supreme Court." NBC News. 7 September 2018. https://nbcnews.to/2x1byK1
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And now we have another woman confirming that he drank to excess, often became belligerent and drank to the point of blackout. From Yale classmate Lynne Brookes:
"From something I witnessed personally, I find it very hard to imagine that he never blacked out or had memory problems. . . .This is about the integrity of the Supreme Court. I know that Brett mischaracterized himself, and it's incredibly disappointing that despite that, this man could be elevated to the Supreme Court."
You are correct in saying an allegation is not proof; however, in the face of a reasonably credible allegation, prudence and equanimity bid sagacious observers, stakeholders and participants to "stop the train" and determine the nature and extent of the actual or likely veracity of the allegation. Using the body of obtainable information gathered from rigorously seeking corroborating and refuting data pertaining to the allegation, sagacious individuals can then form sound/cogent analysis of the totality of the allegation's veracity and determine the probability of it being true or untrue. Having thus determined the nature and extent of the allegation's truth/falsity, sagacious individuals can and will decide on how to proceed.
Trump, Kavanaugh and Senate Republicans were keen to grant their approbation to Kavanaugh while lacking as much information as can be obtained about the allegation made against him. Were the nature of the allegation trivial -- say, for example, that he routinely wears brown shoes with a black tuxedo or some other silly thing -- it'd be fine to disregard it and move forward with a confirmation vote. But the allegation against isn't trivial. It goes to a variety of things, all of which are germane to whether one is fit to be SCOTUS justice:
Is it both possible and, given the body of obtainable information, likely that Brett, while in a state of alcohol-induced blackout, sexually assaulted Chrissy Blasey?
Why You Cannot Remember What You Did While You Were Drunk
From what several folks have said about Brett's drinking habits, it seems very plausible that Brett (perhaps too others at the party) was drunk enough to have assaulted Blasey and not recalled that he did so. Were that how things happened, his denial of having assaulted Blasey is, as far as he knows, truthful because he was in an en bloc or sufficiently fragmented blackout state of mind at the time to literally have formed no memory of the event or even that part of the day.
Did Brett have a drinking problem? If so, has he gotten it under control?
Is Brett an alcoholic?
If so, his sobriety is in question because his remarks under oath suggest he still drinks alcoholic beverages.
Being an alcoholic is like being born of a given mother and father. It's no more possible to be not an alcoholic than is to be not born of those two people's genes. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the only viable option for an alcoholic is to never drink alcoholic beverages.
In responding to the allegation, did Brett lie under oath about the nature of his recreational activities when he was a late teen and young adult?
There's no reason for anyone to lie about such things for we've all "had our moments of indiscretion," so to speak. There's certainly no reason for a would-be SCOTUS justice to lie about such things, yet in responding to the allegation, it's unclear whether Brett was truthful in his sworn portrayal of himself.
In responding to the allegation, did Brett lie under oath about being at the house with Blasey?
His own calendar says he was, on July 1st, meeting "Squi" (presumably Timmy), PJ, and Mark for a party at "Timmy's," and Dr. Ford identified PJ as being there.
Brett said that he wasn't in DC during 1982 summer weekends. That's believable, but July 1, 1982 wasn't a weekend day.
Like others of Bretts social class, I know where I was on July 2, 1982, but, other than work during the day, I don't know what I did on July 1st of that year.
For the weekend, I stayed in D.C. and spent July 4th on the National Mall, smoking weed, drinking beer, playing frisbee, flirting with women and just generally having a good ol' time while the Beach Boys played. I know that because at that time, I was two years out of undergrad and though I earned a reasonable salary, it wasn't enough to splurge on a plane ticket and fly to the Cape to go to my parents' July 4th party. (Life changes when one lives on one's own dime instead of one's parents'.) Doing that was cheaper too than renting a beach house in DE, which is what some of my friends did that weekend. (And frankly, cheaper was far more appealing to me because my money went to renovating my house, a fixer-upper that, at the time, had two "usable" rooms: the master bedroom and the kitchen.)
In responding to the allegation, Brett, with his belligerence and impudent remarks during the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing, showed his capacity for and willingness to devolve quickly to boisterous histrionics rather than remaining calm under pressure. Do we want such an intemperate person sitting on the Court? (I know I don't.)
I mean, really...What mature and stable adult flies into fits of fury when responding to allegations about
Was Brett, for a material period of his formative years in high school and college, insouciant about imposing his will on women, and was he acquiescent about women's personal sovereignty?
If so, is there any reason to think that he remains of those mindsets, or is there reason to think he's disabused himself of those mindsets?
Is Brett a juist who at least appears to impartially and dispassionately apply and interpret the law?
His diatribe vilifying Democrats by levying an uncogent appeal to motive strongly suggests he's not at all a logic-driven evaluator the law and facts of a given matter.
Why is that BS? Perspicacious people of integrity routinely form opinions based on whatever information they have. If/when they obtain contravening information, they adjust their stance.
When the only answer options are "yes" and "no," one must evaluate the information one has, however imperfect it be, and determine whether it militates preponderantly for one's answering "yes" or "no." Dealing with the fact of one's having imperfect information is a fact of life through which one must yet sally forth.
Why, given that here there's no material risk associated with whatever you choose, that's beyond your abilities is beyond me; however, I accept as true your attestation (red text above) that it is, even as there are thousands of publicly and freely available pieces of information about Brett Kavanaugh. (Hell, your poll response isn't even permanent; there's a "change your vote" option.)
Most folks have experience answering questions for which the information available to them is incomplete. Perhaps you have taken an exam having questions that ask questions such as:
Choose the best answer.
Evaluate the following scenario and with regard to it, and in 500 words or less, explain what you believe is the most cogent explanation for the noted outcome(s)/conclusions.
I sure have. Indeed, not only have I taken tests having instructions such as those, I've given exams having them. For such questions, information is deliberately omitted because the point of the question is to test not only one's mastery of the objective subject matter and technical techniques, but also one's analytical abilities, adroitness and acumen in applying facts, methods/techniques.
Obviously, I'm not testing anyone here, but my question nonetheless requires one to use the same skills as one must to answer questions such as those I noted. The difference between my question here and test questions I've posed/answered, is that I merely bid respondents here to identify the conclusion to their analysis, not their actual analysis. In contrast, on tests, the conclusions are given, but I/test takers had to not only choose the best conclusion, but also provide a strong and cogent explanation for why I/they chose that conclusion. I didn't give any credit for guessing the best conclusion yet giving an uncogent explanation for doing so....In other words, I gave no credit for lucky guesses; one received credit for what one demonstrated one knew and one's ability to apply that knowledge.
My question is if this is the best our nation has to offer in the judicial arena? That would be very disappointing in view of the judicial honors afforded the "founders" of the Constitution.
Seems the job does warrant at least cursory investigation into the lifetime background of the candidate.
Until now, it has been a complete charade.
i would put the odds around 80% chance he is an alcaholic.
he was probably going cold turkey during the senate hearing.
it seems like the originial idea was an open forum for the democratic peoples law of common society to be expressed through which has been turned into a facist mechnism like the hunger games movie plot.
from a "show us how ideal you are for the position"
to a "how dare you say anything that might hurt my Ego because i am powerful and you are just a lowly peasant worth nothing"
it looks like the senate are doing themselves out of their own jobs as far as a democratic society is concerned.
end result(dog whistle politics)
useless good for nothing senate
sack all the senators and stop wasting tax payer money on them.
rich fat lazy stealing aristocrats playing word games while excercising their own personal dogma political games to make new laws to suite their own minority extremist beleifes...
who is their boss ?
why are they not sacked yet ?
Republicans = 45 men & 5 women
Democrats = 34 men & 16 women
yet women make up 50% of the population and 100% of the child bearing population
personally if it was me, i would want 50% of the population represented.
Both halves 50/50 have the right to vote. If they choose men over women, whose to blame?
you raise a good point
is there an option for voting on gender like the compulsory marriage license and adoption laws ?
can you exclude someone based on their gender from running ?
taking a step back to comprehend the pool we are swimming in for this debate.
what the people chose, they chose gender as being a position to validate discrimination against as a cultural norm
soo your question is hardly a black and white issue of why didnt they choose to vote for a penis.
you can moraly judge the value that the republicans put on women by their ability to put them in leadership and authority roles.
soo simply by being a republican you have to down grade your respect for women to adhere to the rule that women are not good enough to be in leadership roles.
thats a big moral position for a free democratically educated 1st world citizen.
that is a big issue for a modern culture.
it stands there staring back at the USA society.
roe vs wade
reproductive health care
gender neutral toilets/bathrooms/restrooms
the message is quite clear from the right
if your female, you are worth less as a leader.
soo... answering your question ...
those who are in power
who's to blame for domestic violence and child abuse ? women ?
is it 50/50 ? is that culture
who is in power ?
when you next go to vote, do not forget to look for the "must have a penis" option
Separate names with a comma.