Wow.

So I just looked at this and, honestly, the supposed meanings of these "slang terms" in his calendar are more far fetched than what he says they are. This is just insane.

Edit - I meant yearbook and not calendar.

Boofed and Devil’s Triangle are common slang.

? Establishing someone's character by showing direct lies isn't the right way to approach this?

Naturally Wookie06 like most Republicans will swear Ford is a liar exactly as long as Kav is politically useful to them. If his nomination gets withdrawn and replaced with a different partisan judge he’ll claim he knew it all along and that he’s glad the truth came out before the confirmation hearing.

It’s not worth the time.

I already said I don't know if he's a good guy or not and I don't know that Ford is a liar but it's also one hundred percent possible that she is being completely honest about her recollection and that her recollection is completely wrong. Now, if democrats didn't want this to appear as a politically motivated tactic to stall the confirmation then they shouldn't have used it as a politically motivated tactic to stall the confirmation. And so far as those bizarre slang terms being common with teenagers in the 1980s, I've never heard them and I was a teenager in the 1980s.

Nobody can determine that her allegation is truthful or accurate so just because of the seriousness of the charge he's the devil incarnate? And I'm the ignorant one? These kinds of brain dead biases you people exhibit is exactly why I don't get emotional about American politics anymore.

Would it even be possible to "prove" that he raped her? It's her word against his.

Actually, even if all the allegations she has made are true, he didn't rape her (she said she thought he was going to) and, no, rape or any of the other accusations cannot be proven and the FBI can't actually investigate any of this as a crime.

Obviously it’s a politically motivated tactic to stall the confirmation. Do you think you deserve a medal for that stunning realization or something?

Oh no! Someone is whipping up a populist frenzy with unfalsifiable allegations!

Quickly, fellow stormtroopers! To the pizza restaurants!

boof

Actually, Ford had a much better track record of answering questions than Kavanaugh at that hearing.

He's a sicko because he uses his daughter to set himself up as a religious family man, simply to score points. I'm not claiming this particular manipulation tactic is specific to him, but combined with the lying, it does present an impression of his character. Apart from his debts and mysterious loans, and possible drinking problem.

Anyway, perhaps we'll find out more the coming week, or perhaps not.

Hers isn’t the only allegation, other instances have had witnesses, sexual harassment concerns have been raised against him in the past. People have been convicted for a lot more based on a lot less.

Admittedly though, most of those people were black.

why should I believe you?

Oh, I'm sure he's guilty. I just don't think Wookie will be convinced that any of this is to be believed until a judge says so.

What I don't understand about this whole thing is why he needs to be criminally convicted of anything. Isn't the entire point of having a Senate committee to have a "trial" of sorts, where determinations about his character are being made? And why the hell is the standard for his character in such a determination so frickin low that he'd literally has to be a criminal before his partisan supporters will second thought to his nomination?? Then again, an actual criminal nominated him and his party seems to be fine with that, so....

Nevermind, I've gone off topic again. Once again: Hillary for Prison 2016!

boy isn’t it interesting how so many constitutional originalists on the internet suddenly have such strong opinions about folks trying to derail the appointment of a justice with wildly expansionary beliefs about executive power.

oh well, power is a means to its own end, words have no meaning, principles are just something you pretend to have so you can pretend to be insulted when someone accuses you of not having any.

Like I said

Wookie06 will believe Kavanaugh is innocent as long as Kavanaugh is politically useful to the Republican Party. Wookie06 will call him a rapist when it is politically expedient for the Republican Party to publicly call him one. Facts don’t matter to him, all that matters is party.

I’ve spent a lot of time arguing with wookie06 about political **** and this is basically what it comes down to. There’s no point even getting into it with him. If you want to convince him you don’t need to convince a judge, you just need Ted Cruz to say it.

Yeah I don't believe Wookie's suspicions. How can we be sure he isn't lying?

The only matter before anyone is the Ford allegation. Any and all allegations should be looked into.





So you think he's guilty? You also wonder if he can be charged with rape. She specifically said she was not raped.

If the new standard is to become that any allegation is enough to disqualify a nominee then we will officially welcome in a new era. I don't know if Republicans will be slimy enough to participate, though.



Well, when he is charged with a crime I'd call him a rapist and not Bob Mueller charged but, like, really charged.



Says the troll. You don't really argue. You insult and dismiss. In this case you love to point out that her allegation, the one that can't be charged or really investigated, cannot be proven false. You hate Republicans and since we can't prove her claim false, what? Why do any of you care about Kavanaugh and these sketchy non-rape allegations anyway? Unfortunately we have come to the point where he has to be confirmed in order to not make this sort of thing precedent. Of course when we get past that, Democrats will use that as precedent to nominate and support actual rapists. Not that there isn't already precedent for Democrat rapists rising to the highest office in the land or anything.

I remember when the Anthony Weiner thing was going on. The thread is easy to find. So many doing so many mental cheetah flips to explain the tweets away. I said he was drunk, meant to dm somebody, sent it as public and off we went. Of course, that's exactly what happened and not one person apologized or acknowledged that their bias prevented them from thinking critically.

My position isn't that I support Kavanaugh, it's that I give him the benefit of the doubt in the midst of a politically motivated unprovable attack. Perhaps if we ever get the sort of government Jon`C would approve of we will have a system where the accused much prove their accuser false. Surely then we will get a larger number of criminals convicted including, of course, black people.

Oh, and I don't care if you believe me. You know more about this sort of thing than I anyway. Same with Stormfront (is it, not sure about the name).

I'm not so sure you can discount that Republicans can't be that slimy. After all, with Merrick Garland, the principle wasn't that something bad is enough to disqualify a nominee. The rule there was you don't need *any* reason to disqualify a nominee.

LOL.

Yeah, the antics of the Republican party and its apologists are pretty transparently hilarious when they pretend to be acting on principal rather than blatant opportunism.

Oh man, this is quite a disturbing worldview.

So, even if any one of the accusors has a shred of credibility, it is still our duty to look past them if it seems the Democrats are exploiting them for political ends? Yeah, that totally sounds like the attitude of someone who's not locked into the partisan mentality.

Of course democrats jumped on the opportunity to use her experience for political gains. It's a testimony during confirmation hearings of a supreme court justice.

Right?

The Democrats can't actually do anything to stop the Republicans from confirming him, and most Americans aren't ever gonna understand the substance of the issues here, so they've done the only thing they can do: make electoral hay.

I think it's feasible that he won't have the votes. Getting Flake to insist on an FBI investigation was a real coup. It may add political pressure for some crucial swing votes. It's unlikely but I don't think it's impossible anymore.

2016: The GOP insists on not hearing Merrick Garland because it's an election year, and it would be anti-democratic and an abrogation of duty to allow him to be considered for the Supreme Court without the American people having a say at the polls.

2018: The GOP insists on ramming Kavanaugh through confirmation quickly, because an election is coming up and it is an imperative to confirm him to the Supreme Court before the American people are able to have a say at the polls.

Bob Mueller: Rogue Republican

Right, because they have no principles and nothing they say ever matters. There are three things conservatives are never honest about: their motivations, their expected outcomes, and how many skinned cats you'll find in their childhood homes crawlspace.

Electorally, it at least seems like a win/win. Either the Democrats successfully prevent the Republicans from appointing another supreme court justice, or the Republicans force it through and reaffirm their standing as the party of rich entitled rapists. It's not actually a win/win, though. Kavanaugh is the sort of candidate that only a fascist could love. I'm not saying he's a fascist, but you'll find something to hate in his background unless you are one, if nothing else then the fact that he believes the president has dictator-like powers and openly considers judges as political positions. So really it's more like playing Enablement Act chicken.

Paul Manafort is going to be so relieved that he's not facing, like, real prison.

alternative prison

The Spartans lived under a continuous government and constitution for over 900 years. I think we ought to pick their system if we're just choosing what lasts longest. Ready to become a helot under the military class?

My complaint isn't even that things aren't as democratic as they could be. My complaint is that they aren't democratic at all. You don't need to go full co-op status to make vast improvements to workplaces through democracy. And democracy doesn't mean only direct democracy.

At the very least, we could avoid the problem of corporations cannibalizing themselves by the CEOs to make their friends rich. Mismanagement is the status quo in America today.

to be fair it took me a really long time to figure out that my ****up coworkers were just responding rationally to the incentives they were given

Republicans were being honest and fair with Obama's nomination. It's pretty routine in that sort of situation. I mean, I get how it cuts both ways. I wouldn't be happy being on the other side of that and there was also the risk that Clinton would win and nominate somebody worse. And with regards to the "shred of credibility", I don't think those making accusations are lacking in credibility. Their credibility has not been in question so far as I know. Finally, the democrats didn't use these questionable allegations for opportunity during testimony or even to refute testimony. They leaked the information to stall the vote. I think that's a significant difference. I do wonder, though, while everyone is watching this train wreck what else is going on. There always seems to be something else happening when the political and media machine has the country wrapped up in something trivial.

Take this opportunity to learn from someone who actually understands the process: They weren't, and it isn't.

The thing Republicans ignorantly or dishonestly refer to as "the Biden rule" is a statement from a previously little-known speech Biden gave to the Senate concerning a hypothetical Supreme Court vacancy that never occurred. It was never a rule, was never put into practice, was never even widely embraced by Democrats, and even as a proposed principle did not include the full denial of the President's right and duty to appoint a Supreme Court justice. Prior to Garland's nomination, the historical custom was that the President chose the nominee, and the Senate approved the nominee, unless it deemed that nominee unqualified, and there was never any suggestion from Senate Republicans that Garland was unqualified.

If you can find a "rule" in any of what happened to Garland, it's one of Mitch McConnell's making, and it's that the Senate can block a Supreme Court nomination whenever it wants to. Should Democrats retake the Senate this fall, they'd be entirely justified in citing it to deny Trump or any other Republican president any future Supreme Court nominees.

The Republicans indeed believe in a rule. The rule of law. As in, I AM THE LAW