Board 8 > Do you believe the sexual misconduct claims against kavanaugh ?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Weakupedia posted...

i think that, at the bare minimum, there is enough corroboration that the fucking confirmation hearing shouldn't be moving forward less than 24 hours after the accuser testified

not to mention his tantrum and EXTREMELY partisan comments on a public stage

what the fuck is going on in this country

the moment he is confirmed, SCOTUS has lost severe amounts of credibility

When confirmation has become a partisan circus, it is to be expected. I would be surprised if another justice ever is pushed through to the supreme Court without a majority in the Senate.
---

Weakupedia posted...

not to mention his tantrum and EXTREMELY partisan comments on a public stage

not to mention constantly lying, avoiding to give straight answers, filibustering, and not wanting anybody to look into the allegations

meanwhile Dr. Ford has been completely professional and compliant with all questions from the prosecutor, tried to be as helpful to answering questions as possible, and offering direction to where investigators may search for corroboration (which nobody on the defense wants to pursue), all from a position of weakness no less

watch the damn hearings people
---

ninkendo posted...

Vlado posted...

Who do you think paid Ford for this charade?

Coca Cola

Underrated post.
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

Weakupedia posted...

not to mention his tantrum and EXTREMELY partisan comments on a public stage

not to mention constantly lying, avoiding to give straight answers, filibustering, and not wanting anybody to look into the allegations

meanwhile Dr. Ford has been completely professional and compliant with all questions from the prosecutor, tried to be as helpful to answering questions as possible, and offering direction to where investigators may search for corroboration (which nobody on the defense wants to pursue), all from a position of weakness no less

watch the damn hearings people

he busted his butt to get to YALE LAW SCHOOL and he likes beer do you like beer?
---

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

Unsure. While I dont think she fabricated what happened to her I do think its possible that it wasnt him that did that to her.

And while the fact that two more women have come forward makes that less likely on its face, from what I understand both of those women arent positive that it was him that did it either. Perhaps he hung out with guys that did stuff like that but didnt do it himself.

At the end of the day theres no way to really know. And I dont know enough about either of them to make a character judgment about whether I think one of them is flat out lying. My gut tells me the truth is somewhere in the middle, for whatever thats worth.

I feel like you mentioned a couple of semi common talking points here that I've seen, but haven't seen clarified, so I'll randomly pick your post to ask about it

First, what about her testimony led you to believe she was telling the truth, but also led you to believe she mistook her attackers' identities? Granted, this is the stance the Republicans were taking, so I don't mean this as a barb aimed towards you

Second, what could possibly constitute "something in the middle" here?

Third, what about his testimony seemed credible? The part where he said he drank often as a teenager, but never once lost control? The part where a devil's threesome was a drinking game? The part where he would randomly attack the questioners? The part where he said a liberal Clinton conspiracy tricked this woman into thinking it was him (or something like that, it wasn't really clear)?

I suspect we're sometimes too kind to obviously lying or ridiculous people (edit: and by this I mean kavanaugh) for the sake of not offending anyone (who walked in assuming he was innocent). it's humbling to admit whatever assumptions you happened to walk in with were wrong, and we naturally tend to give people an out

This is similar to that "no puppet! No puppet! You're the puppet!" debate, where a certain subset of people somehow thought trump did amazingly. I couldn't understand that.

Granted, these hearings were long. A lot of people probably just didn't have the time to watch them, didn't get home until most of the testimony was already complete, and didn't want to shift through however many hours it was

I'll admit that I skipped as much of the Democrats fawning over her and Republicans fawning over him as I could

I dunno. There have to be so many other superior candidates available
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Imagine being so defensive and uncool that you cant just admit you worded something silly.

whoops I worded it exactly how it needed to be worded, Bananor got it. Looks like you're just an idiot sorry.
---

banananor posted...

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

Unsure. While I dont think she fabricated what happened to her I do think its possible that it wasnt him that did that to her.

And while the fact that two more women have come forward makes that less likely on its face, from what I understand both of those women arent positive that it was him that did it either. Perhaps he hung out with guys that did stuff like that but didnt do it himself.

At the end of the day theres no way to really know. And I dont know enough about either of them to make a character judgment about whether I think one of them is flat out lying. My gut tells me the truth is somewhere in the middle, for whatever thats worth.

I feel like you mentioned a couple of semi common talking points here that I've seen, but haven't seen clarified, so I'll randomly pick your post to ask about it

First, what about her testimony led you to believe she was telling the truth, but also led you to believe she mistook her attackers' identities? Granted, this is the stance the Republicans were taking, so I don't mean this as a barb aimed towards you

Second, what could possibly constitute "something in the middle" here?

Third, what about his testimony seemed credible? The part where he said he drank often as a teenager, but never once lost control? The part where a devil's threesome was a drinking game? The part where he would randomly attack the questioners? The part where he said a liberal Clinton conspiracy tricked this woman into thinking it was him (or something like that, it wasn't really clear)?

I suspect we're sometimes too kind to obviously lying or ridiculous people (edit: and by this I mean kavanaugh) for the sake of not offending anyone (who walked in assuming he was innocent). it's humbling to admit whatever assumptions you happened to walk in with were wrong, and we naturally tend to give people an out

This is similar to that "no puppet! No puppet! You're the puppet!" debate, where a certain subset of people somehow thought trump did amazingly. I couldn't understand that.

Granted, these hearings were long. A lot of people probably just didn't have the time to watch them, didn't get home until most of the testimony was already complete, and didn't want to shift through however many hours it was

I'll admit that I skipped as much of the Democrats fawning over her and Republicans fawning over him as I could

I dunno. There have to be so many other superior candidates available

Fair questions, Im at work so Ill have to condense my answer a bit but basically my inclination is to lean towards the simplest answer for what ultimately happened. I dont think the simplest explanation is that one of them is completely lying or that the other is fabricating everything theyre saying.

The fact that alcohol and possibly drugs were involved clouds things a lot. I know personally Ive never been so drunk that I misremember events but I know people who that does happen to. Alcohol affects different people differently.

Theres also the fact that only Christine Blasey Ford seems to be 100% certain that it was him. People who were also at the event in question have said they have no recollection of anything like what shes alleging going on between her and Cavanaugh. But she also mentioned this to people years ago, it doesnt make sense to me that she would just make it up for no reason when there was no political reason to do so at the time.

I guess it comes down to me not really wanting to assume that one of them is outright lying about everything. I have no evidence to support an assumption like that. And its entirely possible that she was assaulted and is just not clearly remembering who it was that did it. Thats what I mean by somewhere in the middle.
---

yeah, absolutely, i get it

i guess i just can't find anyone saying what 'the simplest answer' is, and maybe I'm supposed to feel dumb for not reaching it on my own

i hate to ask the same question twice, but what do you think the simplest answer is with regards to only ford and kavanaugh?
---

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

I guess it comes down to me not really wanting to assume that one of them is outright lying about everything.

I feel like this should be easier to assume now that its established that one of them lied about a lot of other things in his testimony
---

banananor posted...

yeah, absolutely, i get it

i guess i just can't find anyone saying what 'the simplest answer' is, and maybe I'm supposed to feel dumb for not reaching it on my own

i hate to ask the same question twice, but what do you think the simplest answer is with regards to only ford and kavanaugh?

Well without all the other information that has come to light recently my initial thoughts on it were that they had some sort of romantic encounter. I didnt and still dont believe that she fabricated the whole thing and his denial of even knowing her at all at first seemed unlikely to me, seeing as how something like that would be pretty easy to prove. Based on just her word versus his, with no outside evidence or anything, her word seemed more credible to me.

I was on the fence until he said he didnt know her at all, I was like Cmon man you obviously know her, if you didnt have a sexual encounter with her you should have just said that. It was too big of a denial to me.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

I guess it comes down to me not really wanting to assume that one of them is outright lying about everything.

I feel like this should be easier to assume now that its established that one of them lied about a lot of other things in his testimony

What else did he lie about?
---

The sexual phrases from his yearbook, and that other accounts on the record refuted Dr Fords claims
---

Jakyl25 posted...

The sexual phrases from his yearbook, and that other accounts on the record refuted Dr Fords claims

Thats fair I suppose, although maybe a bit harsh? They dont refute or corroborate. No third party can really definitively say it didnt happen, only that they have no direct knowledge of it happening.

Can you elaborate on the yearbook stuff? What did he lie about in regards to that?
---

he lied when he said "all the other witnesses said something like this never happened."

"i don't remember it happening" != "it absolutely didn't happen."
---

He lied about what boofed means

He lied about what Devils Triangle is

He lied about what being a Renate Alumnus was regarding Renate Schroeder

Also he lied about being legally able to drink at 18 in Maryland in 1983
---

Thanks for answering, CK. (is that an alt?)

the idea that consensual sex traumatized her to the point that she needed two front doors installed in her home just doesn't sit right with me. but I'm also not exactly an expert

I don't agree that that fits occam's razor- however, I do appreciate you sharing your thought process in a genuine manner
---

banananor posted...

Thanks for answering, CK. (is that an alt?)

the idea that consensual sex traumatized her to the point that she needed two front doors installed in her home just doesn't sit right with me. but I'm also not exactly an expert

I don't agree that that fits occam's razor- however, I do appreciate you sharing your thought process in a genuine manner

Nope no alts for me. I think alts are stupid if Im being honest.
---

"I don't wanna believe that a liar that refuses to tell the truth on multiple simple facts and consistently tries to avoid any meaningful investigation or questioning being accused of sexual assault is lying" is ridiculous.
---

What Republicans should do is just scrap kavanaugh and pick another nominee. You can confirm him during the lame duck session. Democrats wont like it, but not sure they could do much to stop it.
---

No, they could not stop that, and it's what I'd expect in a situation where the nomination is pulled/rejected.

However, the only two people who can withdraw the nomination are Trump and Kavanaugh and neither is willing. And the Senate GOP is too cowardly to reject him themselves in a vote.
---

I mean there's no stopping a conservative justice getting this seat, Dems can't block to 2020 -- even in the still unlikely scenario they take the senate next month.

Republicans will still be perfectly healthy to scrap Kavanaugh, they're just too far deep to admit they've been defending a sexual assaulter.
---

recap

- vote to advance kavanaugh to the senate vote was scheduled for 1;30
- a bunch of democrats and flake didn't show up until like 1;50
- flake says that he wants to give 1 week time for a more comprehensive FBI investigation into kavanaugh, but that he is willing to vote yes to advance to the senate vote in the meantime
- 11 to 10, kavanaugh is advanced to the senate vote with flake's aye
- democrats begin discussing their motion about the fbi investigation

(cspan annoying cut the feed here to whatever was scheduled at 2, so I had to look around about a minute until I found another feed)

- grassley states that flake's opinion was noted but he doesn't really have the authority to make that kind of decision anyway (edit: that will be up to schumer and mcconnel)
- grassley ends the session abruptly based on some rule about them being in session for 2 hours or longer
- the democrats aren't able to put forward their motion or call for a vote

guess those guys shouldn't have showed up 20 minutes late, huh

everything at the end happened pretty fast and during the time cspan cut the feed so uh, if anyone else has more accurate or comprehensive info feel free to elaborate and/or correct what I've posted above
---

also I wasn't actively taking notes but from my understanding flake was questioned by feinstein about his remarks (they didn't seem to be whatever she thought they had discussed prior to the vote), and he mentioned that the FBI investigation could take up to a week but it's also possible it could be conducted in a shorter amount of time.

ie if the FBI investigates for 3 days and then clears kavanaugh of all suspicion then he would be comfortable voting on day 3 instead of waiting a full week arbitrarily.
---

sadly, if the democrats gained a majority in the senate they'd have to be insane not to delay the supreme court pick until 2020

or strong-arm trump into nominating garland somehow
---

banananor posted...

or strong-arm trump into nominating garland somehow

"Obama couldn't get Garland confirmed, he was too weak."
---

right now we're looking at either an october 2nd or october 4th vote

I don't really see the democrats gaining a majority in the senate before then

they'd have to come up with a new strategy to delay for at least another month
---

Wouldnt they have to delay 3 months?
---

The only way they can have a Oct 2 vote is if they proceed with the original plan that involved no investigation.

There are a number of procedural votes they must take first. They got the committee one out of the way, but has there been any word on taking (and approving) the other ones still?
---

3 months is more than 1 month, yes
---

xp1337 posted...

The only way they can have a Oct 2 vote is if they proceed with the original plan that involved no investigation.

There are a number of procedural votes they must take first. They got the committee one out of the way, but has there been any word on taking (and approving) the other ones still?

no, see my above post.

MariaTaylor posted...

- grassley ends the session abruptly based on some rule about them being in session for 2 hours or longer
- the democrats aren't able to put forward their motion or call for a vote

unless new information has been produced within the last hour, we won't know anything until mcconnel and schumer make a decision.
---

xp1337 posted...

No, they could not stop that, and it's what I'd expect in a situation where the nomination is pulled/rejected.

However, the only two people who can withdraw the nomination are Trump and Kavanaugh and neither is willing. And the Senate GOP is too cowardly to reject him themselves in a vote.

CelesMyUserName posted...

Republicans will still be perfectly healthy to scrap Kavanaugh, they're just too far deep to admit they've been defending a sexual assaulter.

Nonsense like this is why US liberals deserve zero respect. You can't admit that you simply don't want to allow a potentially conservative (though how conservative could someone who received McCain's endorsement really be?!) justice to be appointed, and that you'll embrace any way to stop him. You have to pretend and go along with the clear lies used as a means to do the sabotaging, too. Pathetic.
---

Vlado posted...

You can't admit that you simply don't want to allow a potentially conservative (though how conservative could someone who received McCain's endorsement really be?!) justice to be appointed, and that you'll embrace any way to stop him.

yes, because when kavanaugh doesn't get appointed we get barrett, who's... way more conservative than kavanaugh.

excellent logic sherlock.
---

no obviously we're going to make up sexual assault claims for everyone Trump nominates until he gives in and nominates Hilary Clinton
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Vlado posted...

You can't admit that you simply don't want to allow a potentially conservative (though how conservative could someone who received McCain's endorsement really be?!) justice to be appointed, and that you'll embrace any way to stop him.

yes, because when kavanaugh doesn't get appointed we get barrett, who's... way more conservative than kavanaugh.

excellent logic sherlock.

Except democrats literally believe in their "blue wave" and being able to postpone the nomination indefinitely afterwards.
---

Vlado posted...

(though how conservative could someone who received McCain's endorsement really be?!)

You're really not versed on US politics, huh
---

yeah, i noticed that too.

"mccain had palin as his running mate! how conservative could she posisbly be?"

uh...
---

McCain was one of the top globalists in US politics, and he would never endorse a truly conservative (i.e. nationalist) SC justice candidate.

Running mates are usually compromises, the comparison is silly.
---

Vlado posted...

Running mates are usually compromises

what does this even mean?
---

I would prefer - speaking from a purely political standpoint - that a conservative justice not be seated, sure. Just as the GOP did to Obama and Garland, a wrong that has yet to be righted. I also disagree with the people here saying Democrats couldn't hold the seat open that long/it'd be a disaster politically.

But that's beside the point. If Kavanaugh withdrew today there's absolutely time for the GOP to force through another nominee and that's what I'd expect to happen. They could lose the Senate in the midterms and still get it done in the lame duck. The deadline isn't November for them, but January.

I think I'm the most optimistic about the Democratic chances for retaking the Senate on this board even but lmao of course the GOP would still proceed with seating someone if the vacancy was still there after losing the Senate in the midterms. Anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of US politics the past three years would know this.
---

Vlado posted...

a truly conservative (i.e. nationalist)

it turns out words just mean whatever you want i guess
---

Once again, joke's on me for trying to reason with people who literally believe neocons and democrats are in any substantial way different.
---

If that's the case you'd think the Democrats wouldn't oppose Kavanaugh because if they succeeded in forcing him to withdraw then Trump might rectify his mistake.

but that's not what is being argued

*thinking emoji*
---

xp1337 posted...

If that's the case you'd think the Democrats wouldn't oppose Kavanaugh because if they succeeded in forcing him to withdraw then Trump might rectify his mistake.

but that's not what is being argued

*thinking emoji*

If Kavanaugh is not confirmed ur gonna see the fastest confirmed judge ever and he is gonna be so conservative it's gonna hurt.

Like you would have to be a fool to think Trump hasn't been spending all this time trying to find the most make it hurt candidate he can find during this time.
---

I feel like Trump, even if advised otherwise, would absolutely refuse to even consider the possibility that something he wanted might not happen.
---

Yes. I have stated I believe that to be the case. And that being so, I have to believe it's exceedingly likely the nominee is preferable to Kavanaugh.

What you (and other republicans I've seen) don't seem to get is that since many of us are assuming that is the case, the objection isn't that Kavanaugh is conservative. It's that he is uniquely terrible because of his view on presidential power, the allegations of assault, and as of the hearing his nakedly partisan and political rant/temperament.

I would prefer a more "conservative" nominee that does not have these problems than Kavanaugh. And I think it's likely we'd get that if this hypothetical played out. Don't know why this is being treated like some gotcha "If you get him to step down you're just gonna get someone even more conservative!" Yeah, duh. We know. We find that preferable. It's like you never understood our opposition in the first place.
---

Especially since the most "make it hurt" option possible here is literally getting Kavanaugh through. Policy-wise he might not be, but given the current political climate there is no candidate that would piss off Trump supporters more.
---

xp1337 posted...

What you (and other republicans I've seen) don't seem to get is that since many of us are assuming that is the case, the objection isn't that Kavanaugh is conservative

Oh, they get it. They're just pretending not to because not doing so lets them make it a tribal issue and shout down the legitimate reasons.

xp1337 posted...

Don't know why this is being treated like some gotcha "If you get him to step down you're just gonna get someone even more conservative!" Yeah, duh. We know. We find that preferable. It's like you never understood our opposition in the first place.

Who is "we"? You're certainly not speaking for the majority of democrat politicians and democrat fanboys, who simply believe that they'll win the senate in November. They certainly don't fucking find that preferable, and if they somehow do, then lol. That means they want to lose.

At least Schumer and the other snakes, despicable as they are, can think in the long term. An actual conservative justice would hurt their puppetmasters far more in the long term than Kavanaugh.

Why they're doing this then? If not to get a guy of theirs in after an unlikely massive win in November, then at least to rally the sheep before the midterms, of course.
---

xp1337 posted...

Yes. I have stated I believe that to be the case. And that being so, I have to believe it's exceedingly likely the nominee is preferable to Kavanaugh.

What you (and other republicans I've seen) don't seem to get is that since many of us are assuming that is the case, the objection isn't that Kavanaugh is conservative. It's that he is uniquely terrible because of his view on presidential power, the allegations of assault, and as of the hearing his nakedly partisan and political rant/temperament.

I would prefer a more "conservative" nominee that does not have these problems than Kavanaugh. And I think it's likely we'd get that if this hypothetical played out. Don't know why this is being treated like some gotcha "If you get him to step down you're just gonna get someone even more conservative!" Yeah, duh. We know. We find that preferable. It's like you never understood our opposition in the first place.

Ur objections bred. Yinz were always outside protesting before any of this. You wanted Garland or a not so conservative choice. They had stickers against his entire final 3 before he even chose, dude. Hell, yinz were painting the woman as a cultist because she was a religious sect.
---

did you seriously rebut me by saying it was "my" objections rather than that of the general left position and literally your next word is to group me in with them collectively?
---