SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[Burgold]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

Should we be doing it to force his words to sound guilty?

 

funny you only have a problem with one way of lying

I don't think we are. I think we are hearing his words at face value and pointing a finger and declaring.

 

"Liar!"

 

There's been no vile twisting of language. Just looking bluntly at what he said, how he said it, and how it conflates with the knowns and his history.

 

For example, when he talks about how he never drank on weekdays and never drank anything other but beer and never blacked out or lost a memory due to excessive drinking... I think none of that sounds remotely true or even plausible. When he implies that he drank legally because he was a senior even though he was underage and was not grandfathered into the previous drinking age... well, that strains his credibility too.

 

When he says he never met people who knew him, his high school buddies, where they partied, where they worked, and intimate details of their life... that strains credibility too!

Edited October 2, 2018 by Burgold

[skinsmarydu]

4 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

You’re right.  He only read about it after it was published.  He didn’t know about it when the New Yorker contacted him about it when he denied it prior to publication. And is now purposefully lying about it. 

No, he's purposefully trying to get others to lie about it. 

Keep up or shut up. 

[Llevron]

Honestly, this is why he is able to get away with being a liar for so long and making it to the supreme court. Because people like you few are so willing to accept his bull**** even when you know hes doing it. 

 

Its amazing you actually allow yourself to be played like this when you are clearly smart enough to see past it. 

 

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, Burgold said:

 

I don't think we are. 

 

 

Theres an entire conversation going on that reminds me of the “you didn’t build that” bull****

 

people conveniently forget how to parse the English language and how to read 

[Llevron]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

 

Theres an entire conversation going on that reminds me of the “you didn’t build that” bull****

 

people conveniently forget how to parse the English language and how to read 

 

If you listen to what he said at face value it sounds like he is saying he found out due to the new yourker piece. Im not making that an issue thats really what I thought he said, live. It obviously wasnt an issue until I knew that he was asking people to say she was a liar before the piece dropped. 

 

Im not sure why that has to be so hard for yall to understand. If it was for Kilmer pointing out the factual inaccuracies like them contacting him for comment I wouldn't have even considered he meant that. Cause he didnt say that. He said in the time since the piece. 

 

This is not that difficult. 

[Popeman38]

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

Stop bruh. They are not the same here. Republicans are trying to force through a judge that has been caught lying under oath multiple times. Dems are trying to stop that. One side does not equal the other here no matter how much you try to make it so. Your consistently preaching on the matter is getting annoying at this point. 

 

I know you see the problem here in the FBI only talking to the 4 people that the GOP and the White House seem necessary. I know you are smart enough to see how that is a conflict of interest. Stop the bull****. 

I didn't say anything about Reps and Dems being the same here, I said that if the roles were reversed (Dems trying to push through a nominee the Reps didn't want) they would be playing games too. 

 

Your second paragraph, is simply not true:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/trump-fbi-kavanaugh.html

 

Quote

The White House authorized the F.B.I. to expand its abbreviated investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh by interviewing anyone it deems necessary as long as the review is finished by the end of the week, according to two people briefed on the matter.

(more at link)

There is nuance here. I can be against Kavanaugh being confirmed (as I have stated multiple times since the day before Ford testified) and also be against political bull****. How the Dems handled the letter from Ford. How a limited scope, limited duration investigation would help, until it wouldn't. 

 

Also, the Dems need to tell Hillary to STFU and go away.  The more she talks, the more she hurts the Dems.

 

Additionally, make sure everyone you know that is legal age is registered to vote, and drive their asses to the polls if you have to. Elections have consequences. Reps elected Trump. Make. Them. Pay.

[Larry]

12 minutes ago, Burgold said:

The saddest thing about the above conversation, and the one that makes you know that games are being played, is how we're trying to lawyer up every sentence. Sentences don't mean what they sound like if you read it this way... I guess it all depends on what your definition of "is" is.

 

1)  It is a legitimate point.  After seeing years of the Republicans attacking people my making claims of dastardly acts that don;t turn out to actually be supported by anything, I don't want to see people accusing them doing the same thing.  If for no other reason than because mI'm tired of one side (have you noticed that it's only one side?) trying to justify that side via liberal use of bothsiderism.  

 

2)  And it is a good deflection, to try to steer the conversation away from their side's attempt to sell a narrative of  

 

     Kavanaugh knew absolutely nothing about this incident before the New Yorker contacted him.

 

     And then immediately contacted every one of the people involved with the incident that he knows nothing about, to give them a heads up and coach them on the team's response.  

 

[tshile]

10 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Honestly, this is why he is able to get away with being a liar for so long and making it to the supreme court. Because people like you few are so willing to accept his bull**** even when you know hes doing it. 

 

Its amazing you actually allow yourself to be played like this when you are clearly smart enough to see past it. 

 

Every single one of us has called him a liar. Except for maybe kilmer, I’m not sure. 

 

But theres an article where they clearly talked to him before publishing it and you and others think his statement says he found out about it when he read the story. Not to mention the other issue with parsing what he actually said. 

 

It’s a pretty dumb thing going on over some pretty basic language. 

 

Might want to check who’s having difficulties with what. Maybe why if you’re so bold. 

Edited October 2, 2018 by tshile

[Burgold]

1 minute ago, Popeman38 said:

I didn't say anything about Reps and Dems being the same here, I said that if the roles were reversed (Dems trying to push through a nominee the Reps didn't want) they would be playing games too. 

 

I don't think the Dems would be playing these games. Look how quickly they threw Franken over the side of the ship. Frankly, I don't think the Republicans would normally play these games either. I think under Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, etc. Kavanaugh's nomination gets pulled for the lies, for the scandals, etc.

 

Hell, it might even be pulled just because we found out he was an out of control drunk with temper issues. I mean seriously, who wants a SCOTUS judge with rage issues? I think Senate Republicans would be privately over the moon and dancing in the halls if Trump pulled the nom, but because he won't they feel stuck. They have a choice between doing the right thing and sinking further down in the quicksand.

 

So far, they seem content to go under (morally speaking)

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I mean seriously, who wants a SCOTUS judge with rage issues?

 

I can think of several possible answers to this question, but I think the best one is that you're seeing the answer to that question right now.  

[Llevron]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

Every single one of us has called him a liar. Except for maybe kilmer, I’m not sure. 

 

And yet you are still willing to presume in this case that he meant something other than what he said. 

1 minute ago, tshile said:

It’s a pretty dumb thing going on over some pretty basic language. 

 

Here we agree. What bothers me is the idea that im being dishonest about thinking he meant something he said. 

1 minute ago, tshile said:

Might want to check who’s having difficulties with what. Maybe why if you’re so bold. 

 

You can play it how you want. I know your mo at this point. Talking to you rarely gets any honest commentary. At this point its probably best for us to just leave it be. 

[The Evil Genius]

Maybe because people read about how it was reported? I have seen this specific phrasing in numerous articles.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna915566

 

Text messages suggest Kavanaugh wanted to refute accuser's claim before it became public

 

The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public.

 

and 

 

Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that the first time he heard of Ramirez’s allegation was in the Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker.

 

 

[Larry]

7 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I think Senate Republicans would be privately over the moon and dancing in the halls if Trump pulled the nom,

 

I think almost everybody involved would be dancing if Kavanaugh were to withdraw himself.  (Making hurt little victim noises about how mean everybody was to him.)  That would be the best play for the team.  

 

Edited October 2, 2018 by Larry

[Kilmer17]

27 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

No, he's purposefully trying to get others to lie about it. 

Keep up or shut up. 

Is that you Senator Hirono?

I called him out for lying about having sex in HS.  Not sure why that matters other than to prove my libsteria bonafides.

 

Which is really the point.  There are so many real issues to be up in arms about, focusing on what he said about when he learned about the dick in face allegations is dumb.  He knew about them before it was published because he was cited in the article as denying it.  So how could he NOT know about it if they are saying he denied it?

[skinsmarydu]

Just now, Kilmer17 said:

Is that you Senator Hirono?

No, just someone else who should be silenced? 

And despite sitting in Steve Vai's speakers, I KNOW THAT I PROPERLY HEARD WHAT HE SAID. 

And it's on record, hopefully...who knows anymore? 

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

No, just someone else who should be silenced? 

And despite sitting in Steve Vai's speakers, I KNOW THAT I PROPERLY HEARD WHAT HE SAID. 

And it's on record, hopefully...who knows anymore? 

You HEARD him say that "he read about her allegation in the NYorker story"?  Really?  Can you post that video please.

[Fresh8686]

10 hours ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

So a dude with an ex-girlfriend who is alleging that he admitted to taking turns with other guys having sex with a drunk woman, has a video fetish that involves videos of passed out teens?

This is a major red flag.

[Dan T.]

[justice98]

Kavanaugh is just so not worth all this hassle.  If it's him or nobody, that's one thing.  But if they can ram a new person through, they're being ridiculously stubborn about holding on to him.  

[Llevron]

14 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

 

So a dude with an ex-girlfriend who is alleging that he admitted to taking turns with other guys having sex with a drunk woman, has a video fetish that involves videos of passed out teens?

This is a major red flag.

 

Not creepy at all 

[Spaceman Spiff]

13 minutes ago, justice98 said:

Kavanaugh is just so not worth all this hassle.  If it's him or nobody, that's one thing.  But if they can ram a new person through, they're being ridiculously stubborn about holding on to him.  

 

But thats how it is these days.  Party first.  Never show weakness.  Never give an inch.  Nevermind that they can find more just like him, that would be kowtowing to the #metoo movement and we can't have that.  No, BK or bust.

[The Evil Genius]

I don't know what else to say. Seems to be clear language saying what he's saying.

 

Frankly, I struggle to come up with another explanation.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/
 

 

HATCH: When was the first time that the ranking member or her staff asked you about these allegations?

 

KAVANAUGH: Today.

 

HATCH: When did you first hear of Ms. Ramirez’s allegations against you?

 

KAVANAUGH: In the last — in the period since then, the New Yorker story.

 

HATCH: Did the Ranking Member or any of her colleagues or any of their staffs ask you about Ms. Ramirez’s allegations before they were leaked to the press?

 

KAVANAUGH: No.

[Kilmer17]

Im still not seeing where he said he read it in the New Yorker.

[Zguy28]

I admit I haven't been following this as much as ya'll, but I just saw a video of Sheila Jackson passing an envelope furtively to Ford's attorney during the hearing. Not sure what that was, but whatever, it doesn't give a good look.

 

https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/sheila-jackson-lee-envelope/

 

Edited October 2, 2018 by Zguy28

[The Evil Genius]

5 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Im still not seeing where he said he read it in the New Yorker.

 

The claim (his claim under testimony) appears to be that he learned of the Ramirez allegations in the period since the New Yorker story? That would conflict with what we now know regarding his alleged knowledge of it since July.

Edited October 2, 2018 by The Evil Genius