Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[Yankguy1]

Wait.  No MAGA candidates in Maryland?  I guess we're not very ambitious.   

[josh]

I said, Is the yearbook evidence disqualifying?

A simple NO will do.

Oh, poor Kiid.

We didn't dance to your tune?

No, a simple "NO" won't do because it is not in isolation. In isolation, that evidence is not disqualifying. We are not sure whether it is now or not.

It's unclear that sexual assault (Class 3) is disqualifying!

[josh]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/25/17901304/lisa-murkowski-kavanaugh-accusers-swing-vote

Murkowski says it is not about his judicial qualifications anymore, but about whether one believes women when they come forward about sexual assault.

Meaning what?  Vote against so that Ms Ford and others will be believed?  Seems to be a disconnect - sorry.

No.

Meaning that if we believe her, we must vote against him.

I dont have a problem with this.

I also dont believe there is more than a 50% chance she will even show up.

Of course you don't.

[kiidcarter8]

I said, Is the yearbook evidence disqualifying?

A simple NO will do.

No, a simple "NO" won't do because it is not in isolation. In isolation, that evidence is not disqualifying.

Thanks

[NeedsAdjustments]

Of course the yearbook stuff is slimy.

Is it disqualifying?

Wrote this then got pulled away.  Repeating what has been said already, but anyway:

By itself, no.  When added to the other evidence of Kavanaugh’s misogyny, maybe.  When added to the sexual assault allegations, when Republicans elevated Kavanaugh’s spotless relationship with women in a letter signed by former classmates and acquaintances as the main piece contradicting those allegations, yes, it does become part of the case against him.

I can’t imagine there is a qualification more important to a Supreme Court Judge (or any judge) than his honesty, and Kavanaugh’s yearbook next to his performance on FOX when he could admit no faults and claimed to be a responsible drinking choir boy, also adds to the evidence that he is less than honest.  For heaven’s sake, half those entries are references to drinking.

A Justice should not be able to so easily shape/lie history so that it fits his political ambitions, and that has been the problem with Kavanaugh from the very start.

[josh]

I said, Is the yearbook evidence disqualifying?

A simple NO will do.

Unless the yearbook had a clear admission or photos, why would it in isolation be disqualifying?

However it certainly suggests that the choirboy image BK porttrayed of himself on the Fox puff piece interview was false.

He was lying.

But thanks for cutting to the quick and making the case that a real investigation is necessary if truth is the goal.

Give me the statement that is a lie.

Did he say he didnt drink beer at Prep?

Did he deny that the stuff in the yearbook existed?

What lie, exactly?

Played football, concentrated on grades..........etc

And didnt assault anyone.

You are calling that last one a lie simply because of the yearbook and the knowledge of daily life at Prep. 

This is irresponsible.

"The statement..."

It was "The image..." that was the lie. I suspect also the statement that he was a virigin was probably a lie, but he could have been, especially given the difficulty he reportedly had getting her clothes off!

But if he was a virgin, then he was a liar in the yearbook, I suppose.

He lied during his prior confirmation hearings, Kiid. This is pretty well established at this point.

He lied about the drinking age and that the 18 year olds drinking at his parties were legal. His language suggests he drank and drank legally, but it only suggests it - but the suggestion is wrong, too.

[kiidcarter8]

Who wrote the entries, Needs?

Can any of it be considered Kavanaugh's words?

[NeedsAdjustments]

Who wrote the entries, Needs?

Can any of it be considered Kavanaugh's words?

Yes.  The students wrote the entries.

[bankshot1]

I said, Is the yearbook evidence disqualifying?

A simple NO will do.

Unless the yearbook had a clear admission or photos, why would it in isolation be disqualifying?

However it certainly suggests that the choirboy image BK porttrayed of himself on the Fox puff piece interview was false.

He was lying.

But thanks for cutting to the quick and making the case that a real investigation is necessary if truth is the goal.

Give me the statement that is a lie.

Did he say he didnt drink beer at Prep?

Did he deny that the stuff in the yearbook existed?

What lie, exactly?

Played football, concentrated on grades..........etc

And didnt assault anyone.

You are calling that last one a lie simply because of the yearbook and the knowledge of daily life at Prep. 

This is irresponsible.

I'm calling him a liar based on what he said versus what we;ve learned in toto, From the various allegations, (Ford and Ramirez) the writings of his buddy Judge and the damning character reference from his college roomate, who called him an aggressive and belligerent drunk.

I find it telling that the the alleged victim Dr. Ford, wants an FBI investigation, and when pressed the BK just wants a "fair hearing" orchestrated by his sponsors, where all he needs is 11 partisan votes to move forward.

He does not want a search for the truth.

It seems clear he's afraid of the truth.

[kiidcarter8]

Here is the transcript

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/24/brett-kavanaughs-fox-news-interview-transcript-annotated/?utm_term=.40824f00870b

Please point out the lies.

[bankshot1]

kid

There are two women who said they were sexually accosted by Kavanaugh and two men, Judge and Roche, who by their own words cast serious doubt about Kav's truthfullness about these events.

I do not believe that Kavanaugh has always treated women with dignity and respect. 

[josh]

Here is the transcript

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/24/brett-kavanaughs-fox-news-interview-transcript-annotated/?utm_term=.40824f00870b

Please point out the lies.

Paywall.

:-P

[kiidcarter8]

https://twitter.com/HuntsmanAbby/status/1044354331816972290

Amen, Ms Huntsman.

[Yankguy1]

Here is the transcript

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/24/brett-kavanaughs-fox-news-interview-transcript-annotated/?utm_term=.40824f00870b

Please point out the lies.

Paywall.

:-P

Ha!  Some things are worth paying for!!!

[kiidcarter8]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/25/17900812/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-georgetown-prep-trump

Again - was anything on "his yearbook page" written by Kavanaugh?

There are ZERO inconsistencies here.  Kavanaugh was not asked if he hung out with neanderthals (Ms McCallum, you missed this one).  Though he did state that there was no sexual abuse that he knew of occurring at these parties.