Do you support Mr. Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford?

Should Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed by the Senate?

  • No, and I'm a Republican

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, and I'm neither Democrat nor Republican

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
He'd probably have to screw up on the job for that
religous confirmation
he will be above the law then

Failure to recuse himself when formally and publicly required to do so would be grounds for impeachment.
= failure to not beleive in himself = same issue as the religous confirmation now in session
(it is neither science or law, it is dogma & political virtue sgnalling
if you want money and power you have to TAKE IT ! and never accept NO for an answer
the same with personal relationships...

so say they all...

its like a modernised McKarthy-ism court of cultural dogma in process.
all implied ideologies with no actual law requirements other than the dance for the camera to keep their political party happy.

Then, when Democrats regain control, impeach him and remove him.

considering the gerrymandering that went on to set up the seats to win with a minority vote in the 1st place it is very unlikely.
hence my previous comment about white flight.
by maintaining a sense of bias in those gerrymandered states they can continue to maintain their minority rule.
the entire 35 million californins could vote for berny and he would still only get 1 apple kart to their 2 apple karts per 5 million people.

i hope the dems throw the kitchen sink at it.
the idea of the dems backing down to allow the repubs to succeed when they blocked barraks pic for 2 years & held the entire country to ransom on bankruptcys door step etc...
they should never forget how bloody minded the repubs were and ready to bankrupt the country and how they closed down the government to get their own minority conservative dogma ideologies installed.

holding the entire country to ransom
now they wish to do the same to install a puppet extremist ?
 
Last edited:
We have reached a terrifying junction in American history. If the mid-terms are not an absolute tidal wave of blue, I fully expect America as we know it will cease to exist within the next dozen years or so.
 
That's a trial, not a job interview. He'd probably have to screw up on the job for that - which he may, as his extremely partisan responses during the hearing will likely attract a lot of pressure to recuse himself in any partisan matters that come before the Court. Failure to recuse himself when formally and publicly required to do so would be grounds for impeachment.

The Dems would have to get actual, solid control of both Houses of Congress, minimum. There are a couple of impeachments in line ahead of Kavanaugh's, if that happens.
I think one of the things that stunned me about this whole thing is just how little he was actually challenged by the Democrats about his lying under oath during the whole process.

Towards the end, they used his victims as a prop, a last ditch effort.

I suspect there will be grounds for impeachment down the track. Whether the Democrats are willing to push that point if they have control, remains to be seen. However, it does not look promising.

It will never "look like" a Democratic partisan exercise except in the Republican dominated media, and it will always be presented as a Democratic partisan exercise there regardless of followup, so that's not a useful decision criterion.
I think if there are grounds for impeachment and they do not follow through with it, then these last few weeks will look like a desperate partisan exercise and they were willing to use his victims in the process. They didn't capitalise on his lying under oath enough, they did not push the fact that so many legal organisations and groups had withdrawn their endorsement.
 
They didn't capitalise on his lying under oath enough, they did not push the fact that so many legal organisations and groups had withdrawn their endorsement.
And evasion.

"Mr. Kavanaugh, did you ever black out?"
"Did you?"
"Please answer the question."
"Did you?"

That's a yes.

Consider the intent behind "Did you?"
He's saying, "Well perfectly normal people do. Like you. Blacking out is normal. So it's OK if I did."
 
Racism, misogyny, offending LBGTIQ people, the list goes on. Please try to be better than this.
Let me get this straight

First I admit I don't get as much American news as those who live there so I stand to be corrected

From various demonstrators who chant "Ford must be believed because she is a woman" we have point one

Point two, Brett is a white privileged male and cannot be believed. Tick ✓ point two

Point three, from a different region of stupidity there is no such thing as gender so you can pick whatever you wish to be. My last info there are 60 + (I should have stopped counting at three, but no matter)

Point four I note someone took a DNA test, found out they were 4% black and are now applying for certain benifits

Here is how I tie it all up which should make everyone happy

Brett declares he is female. Now point two solved - because he has become a female she must be believed as per point one

Brett takes a DNA, finds some blackness, bingo no longer white. Black cannot, by definition of being black, be privileged

Ladies and gentlemen and the other 58 + genders please welcome to the Supreme Court our newest Justice

Lady Brett, is as you all know, is a wonderful addition to the court, and being a black female has almost fullfilled our diversity quota

We now only need a Mexican Italian transvesite to show our full commitment to diversity

:)
 
Ford's account is pretty solid, since she discussed it with her therapist years before it could possibly be used as a political lever.
Unless she can foretell the future.
 
Consider the intent behind "Did you?"
That's the problem.

They left things unsaid, and hoped that people would make the connection.

There was evidence, but they failed to capitalise on it and instead, left things hanging in the air, unsaid.. Because something something.

It's as though the process of fighting against his nomination was more important than actively doing everything to prevent him from being nominated. Half the time, they were more intent on monologues during their few minutes of questioning.

__________________________________________________


From various demonstrators who chant "Ford must be believed because she is a woman" we have point one
No one has said this.

Point two, Brett is a white privileged male and cannot be believed. Tick ✓ point two
Brett is also someone who has a record and history of lying under oath and thus, cannot be believed. Brett also outed himself as a partisan hack when he was initially named, and thus, cannot be believed to be impartial.

Point three, from a different region of stupidity there is no such thing as gender so you can pick whatever you wish to be. My last info there are 60 + (I should have stopped counting at three, but no matter)
What?

Point four I note someone took a DNA test, found out they were 4% black and are now applying for certain benifits
Let me guess, you are an Australian and you are running with the myth of Indigenous Australians suddenly finding they have Indigenous ancestry and applying for benefits, because you just have to put this bigoted myth in there?

Here is how I tie it all up which should make everyone happy
You mean you weren't done trolling?

Brett declares he is female. Now point two solved - because he has become a female she must be believed as per point one

Brett takes a DNA, finds some blackness, bingo no longer white. Black cannot, by definition of being black, be privileged

Ladies and gentlemen and the other 58 + genders please welcome to the Supreme Court our newest Justice

Lady Brett, is as you all know, is a wonderful addition to the court, and being a black female has almost fullfilled our diversity quota

We now only need a Mexican Italian transvesite to show our full commitment to diversity
A troll and a bigot.

Still digging down I see?
 
Let me guess, you are an Australian and you are running with the myth of Indigenous Australians suddenly finding they have Indigenous ancestry and applying for benefits, because you just have to put this bigoted myth in there?

Yes Australian
No bigoted

Go back to 2010

https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/09/25/a-dna-test-said-he-was-4-black-now-he-wants-to-qualify-as-a-minority-business-owner/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/09/25/a-dna-test-said-he-was-4-black-now-he-wants-to-qualify-as-a-minority-business-owner/

No one has said this.

The huntresses’ war cry — “believe all women” — has felt like a bracing corrective to a historic injustice

And

Emily Lindin, a columnist at Teen Vogue, summed up this view concisely last week on Twitter. “I’m actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations,” she wrote. “If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.”

And

I believe that the “believe all women” vision of feminism unintentionally fetishizes women. Women are no longer human and flawed. They are Truth personified. They are above reproach.

And

Just yesterday The Washington Post reported that a woman named Jaime Phillips approached the paper with a story about Roy Moore. She claimed that in 1992, when she was 15 , he impregnated her and that he drove her to Mississippi to have an abortion. Not a lick of her story is true

Enough???

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/opinion/metoo-sexual-harassment-believe-women.html


The 60 + does relate more to the honorific the person wishes to be applied but frequently it is linked to the gender the person wishes to associate with

13 Gender-Related Terms You Need to Know

These 13 will get you started.

https://www-cosmopolitan-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/amp20888315/genders-identity-list-definitions/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a20888315/genders-identity-list-definitions/

Still digging down I see?

Not digging not troll

:)

Bonus

Have noted somewhere far far away in another thread as far as "race" is concerned all 17 + billion humans on the planet

Humans (taxonomically, Homo sapiens) are the only extant members of the subtribe Hominina.

ie we are All one tribe

:)
 
Last edited:
They left things unsaid, and hoped that people would make the connection.

i wonder if there is cultural practice of the capitalist socio-financial canabal in there.

they leave just enough room so if the victim fails they can walk away and claim they are not financial liable as not being part of the victms support network of complicity to sue & counter sue.
much with most 1st world cultures, doing the right thing & being seen to be voicing or forcing others to do the right things are all 3 very different things.
as long as your in power then none of it really matters because the moral rule will be changed to suit whom ever is in power.
this is a human culture issue more soo than any specific culture issue.
hwoever it comes more distinct as societys become more peaceful and adhere to better moral codes.

The huntresses’ war cry — “believe all women” — has felt like a bracing corrective to a historic injustice

part of the psychosis = 'you can carry a gun, ... or, ...beleive all women ... choose carefully'
it is a mechanised patriarchal pre programed fear of lack of control used as an undercurrent to never challenge power and authority.
the duopoly thrown out as basic logic is a false battle between beleiving everything and having power and control.
i suspect it is possible to strip the gender from it for closer analysis, however that would take some time and considered discussion.

its just a passing thought
 
Last edited:
Enough???
No. Nowhere near. Bunch of trivial anecdotes.

Especially inadequate in this thread, weighed those dustmotes against the overwhelming dominance and power of the cultural norm just demonstrated at the Kavanaugh hearing, the thread topic.

And when followed up by standard wingnut bs about race and supposed PC terminology battles, which are both trivial and irrelevant here, another occasion to regret the nonexistence of an appropriate receptacle for the entire wastage of bandwidth involved.
 
part of the psychosis = 'you can carry a gun, ... or, ...beleive all women ... choose carefully'
it is a mechanised patriarchal pre programed fear of lack of control used as an undercurrent to never challenge power and authority.
the duopoly thrown out as basic logic is a false battle between beleiving everything and having power and control.
i suspect it is possible to strip the gender from it for closer analysis, however that would take some time and considered discussion.

its just a passing thought

To be clear here RS post above was a response to my post

The huntresses’ war cry — “believe all women” — has felt like a bracing corrective to a historic injustice

The above is NOT a Michael345 said

It came from

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/opinion/metoo-sexual-harassment-believe-women.html

and was one of the 4 extracts given to bells assertion

No one has said this.

when I had posted

From various demonstrators who chant "Ford must be believed because she is a woman"

:)
 
No. Nowhere near. Bunch of trivial anecdotes.

Remember the above stuff was in direct reply to Bells post #147 which was Bells post in response to my post #125 in which put 4 talking points

Bells post #147 called into question those points

My post #128 provided back up information about my 4 talking points in my post #125

Post #128 was not intended to rebut the whole spectrum of claims / counter claims

Just to provide further info for post #125

As I said if the stuff in post#125 is incorrect please say so

Example - did Ralph Taylor as per the link do as the article states?

https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn....=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ants-to-qualify-as-a-minority-business-owner/

A simple YES - NO answer would be appropriate

If yes then my point in post #125 is valid
If no then I stand corrected

:)
 
Last edited:
when I had posted
{From various demonstrators who chant "Ford must be believed because she is a woman"}

That would require examples of that quote or its meaning from someone who qualifies as a "demonstrator" (or at least an ally here) associated with the Kavanaugh hearing. This is unlikely on its face, because it doesn't read as a plausible chant. But you don't even get close.

What you posted was a list of triggered wingnut whines from all over the map, as have emerged on cue from the various wingnut boltholes we can collectively classify as 'PC verbiage is the real problem, not this bad stuff that might have happened somehow'.

Whatever is the problem with the people who "support" (means what?) Kavanaugh, it's got nothing to do with PC verbiage. They watched a partisan hack, being questioned about one of the several - all poorly explained and seriously disturbing and directly relevant to his future role as Justice - allegations surrounding him,

behave like a cornered rat - right in front of them, under oath, wearing a suit and tie;

now they are considering seating him on the US Supreme Court.

Official portraits of Supreme Court Justices hang on the walls of the halls of the Court buildings, so future generations know what they looked like. Suggestion - use this image:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2sFAZmwB...yf5oHnnNACLcBGAs/s1600/KavanaughHeraring2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Did you actually read the article?

The huntresses’ war cry — “believe all women” — has felt like a bracing corrective to a historic injustice

And

Emily Lindin, a columnist at Teen Vogue, summed up this view concisely last week on Twitter. “I’m actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations,” she wrote. “If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.”

And

I believe that the “believe all women” vision of feminism unintentionally fetishizes women. Women are no longer human and flawed. They are Truth personified. They are above reproach.

And

Just yesterday The Washington Post reported that a woman named Jaime Phillips approached the paper with a story about Roy Moore. She claimed that in 1992, when she was 15 , he impregnated her and that he drove her to Mississippi to have an abortion. Not a lick of her story is true

Enough???

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/opinion/metoo-sexual-harassment-believe-women.html

No, not enough.

To the one, you took those quotes completely out of context.

To the other, you apply those out of context quotes to something completely unrelated.

I'll give you an example. You quoted this from the article:

Just yesterday The Washington Post reported that a woman named Jaime Phillips approached the paper with a story about Roy Moore. She claimed that in 1992, when she was 15 , he impregnated her and that he drove her to Mississippi to have an abortion. Not a lick of her story is true
And that is literally what you quoted. In full.

Here is what that actually says, in full and with context:

Just yesterday The Washington Post reported that a woman named Jaime Phillips approached the paper with a story about Roy Moore. She claimed that in 1992, when she was 15 , he impregnated her and that he drove her to Mississippi to have an abortion. Not a lick of her story is true.

It appears that Ms. Phillips was collaborating with Project Veritas, an organization that tries to expose mainstream media “bias” through undercover operations, and that the group’s intent was to embarrass The Post — and, ultimately, to discredit Mr. Moore’s other accusers
.

Project Veritas...

The 60 + does relate more to the honorific the person wishes to be applied but frequently it is linked to the gender the person wishes to associate with

13 Gender-Related Terms You Need to Know

These 13 will get you started.

https://www-cosmopolitan-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/amp20888315/genders-identity-list-definitions/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a20888315/genders-identity-list-definitions/
Does not support what you said.

You said:

Point three, from a different region of stupidity there is no such thing as gender so you can pick whatever you wish to be. My last info there are 60 + (I should have stopped counting at three, but no matter)
And you link an article that designates "gender", after you declared "there is no such thing as gender"..

Not digging not troll

:)

Bonus

Have noted somewhere far far away in another thread as far as "race" is concerned all 17 + billion humans on the planet

Humans (taxonomically, Homo sapiens) are the only extant members of the subtribe Hominina.

ie we are All one tribe
It always amuses me when people declare we are all from the "one tribe". Because they are often white and male and it is often when they are challenged in regards to certain bigoted statements they have made...
 
As I said if the stuff in post#125 is incorrect please say so
It's squid ink. It's neither correct or incorrect in this context, being irrelevant bs.
Let me get this straight
Redo from start.
It's as though the process of fighting against his nomination was more important than actively doing everything to prevent him from being nominated. Half the time, they were more intent on monologues during their few minutes of questioning.
Revisit the debate over dumping Al Franken precipitously, before the midterms, in the middle of a Judicial Committee confirmation and facing the likelihood of others to come. You are surprised now by exactly what was identified, warned against, and predicted, then?

Those warnings were described as shallow "political" concerns. We were explicitly informed that Franken would be easy to replace in his established roles, and overtly weighing his value and the risks of his dismissal against the actual nature of his bad behavior was unworthy in principle. His replacement in reality, on the Judiciary Committee, was either Cory Booker or Kamala Harris. His replacement in the Senate was Tina Smith.

Klobucher blue-slipped and voted for that previous poorly vetted Federalist Society list appointment, making all the right compromising noises in the process, that Franken was going to the mat against - mind: going to the mat, risking the disparagement and bad PR and Senatorial comity, partly on Roe v Wade and gender discrimination concerns as highlighted by a Federalist Society endorsement like Kavanaugh's. If Klobuchar had likewise refused to blue-slip, it might have made a difference. Klobucher compromised on Roe v Wade and related matters, Senator Grabass did not.

She has continued to compromise and low-key things, since, as dozens of dubious Judges and other officials roll through the Senate. That is what valuing the appearance of the process over the reality of the outcome gets you, in a Senator. And the result of that is what you saw in this hearing on the D side. Not bad, nothing really wrong - but not what the situation called for. Compromised.
 
From various demonstrators who chant "Ford must be believed because she is a woman" we have point one
Ford should be believed because she is credible.
Point two, Brett is a white privileged male and cannot be believed. Tick ✓ point two
Brett is less likely to be believed because he lied a lot when testifying. People who lie a lot are believed less often.
Point four I note someone took a DNA test, found out they were 4% black and are now applying for certain benifits
And a right wing Nazi murdered a woman protester. What do either of those things have to do with Kavanaugh?
Brett declares he is female. Now point two solved - because he has become a female she must be believed as per point one
Not if she is still Kavanaugh. Because Kavanaugh lies a lot.
We now only need a Mexican Italian transvesite to show our full commitment to diversity
Haha.
Are you going to make a joke about women being abused next? Those are always funny.
 
Well a silver lining to Kavanaugh nomination is that it can galvanize the left to vote more in the upcoming midterm, and make the right overconfident and vote less. Other good news is according to statistics, if we don't loss more liberal court seats and we get the presidency back in 2020 and beyond, then the conservatives will hold the supreme court for a projected average of 8 years.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-long-will-the-supreme-courts-conservative-bloc-survive/
 
It always amuses me when people declare we are all from the "one tribe". Because they are often white and male and it is often when they are challenged in regards to certain bigoted statements they have made...

I am white ✓ male ✓

So how many race do you recognise?

Did you actually read the article?

He claims he is “I’m a certified black man,” he told The Post. “I’m certified black in all 50 states. But the federal government doesn’t recognize me.”

So 50 states certified him black
Federal no (Federal has sense)
Also "he was rejected from a program for minority business" more sense

:)
 
We have reached a terrifying junction in American history. If the mid-terms are not an absolute tidal wave of blue, I fully expect America as we know it will cease to exist within the next dozen years or so.

abortion will be next
assuming its still legal to be a female in the usa by then.
 
Back
Top