Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 195: Revenge of the Clintons

(+) Yeah! (+)

Corrik posted...

pxlated posted...

also, i haven't said a single thing about whether or not i believe kavanaugh is guilty. intentionally. and it's literally irrelevant to this discussion whether or not i think he did.

but please, move the goal posts.

I have already shown in your posts how you have painted a picture.

You are welcome to outright state your views if your context of your posts and implications of your posts is betraying your actual position.

you've painted a picture that's tainted by your bias.

see how this game works? :)

edit: you've shown how my words paint a picture that's tainted by your bias, sorry. before you get on me for the semantics of how i phrased this.
---

pxlated posted...

source on me saying i think republicans would tell her she is full of shit and go fuck herself

If you need help with what I am saying... I find it amusing you think they wouldn't be nice to the woman publically to her face when she is not ruled out by evidence of possibly having been truthful in the situation. Thus, saying she was credible and compelling was being nice to her.

If they actually thought she was credible and compelling, they wouldn't be voting to confirm.
---

Corrik posted...

pxlated posted...

source on me saying i think republicans would tell her she is full of shit and go fuck herself

If you need help with what I am saying... I find it amusing you think they wouldn't be nice to the woman publically to her face when she is not ruled out by evidence of possibly having been truthful in the situation. Thus, saying she was credible and compelling was being nice to her.

If they actually thought she was credible and compelling, they wouldn't be voting to confirm.

because it isn't possible that they believe she is telling the truth, but just has the attacker wrong?

which is literally the narrative they're pushing?
---

and, again, almost none of the republicans actually spoke to ford.
---

anyway, i've finished my coffee and have shit to go do.

just to recap: nothing i said implied that his wife absolutely believes he did it, that she's mad at him, or any of that. in fact, if i've implied anything it's repeatedly been the opposite.

all i've said is that his wife was fascinating to watch, especially watching her going through what i assume is trying to process ford's testimony.

if you want to paint that with your bias that i must absolutely believe kavanaugh did it and i'm just a ravenous dem blahblahblah, more power to you. but literally none of that is in my posts.
---

Today's hearing wouldn't have been the place to raise it, but it's completely ridiculous that the GOP is trying to act like "Well, we had a hearing. Due diligence done!"

They've refused to respond back to Ramirez's requests that she be heard and are just disregarding Swetnick at best, if not trying to attack the allegation by way of Avenatti. And they refused to subpoena any witnesses in Ford's hearing.

They didn't want to have a hearing with Ford, they just are refusing to have hearings about the other allegations, and are acting like "well case closed"
---

xp1337 posted...

Today's hearing wouldn't have been the place to raise it, but it's completely ridiculous that the GOP is trying to act like "Well, we had a hearing. Due diligence done!"

They've refused to respond back to Ramirez's requests that she be heard and are just disregarding Swetnick at best, if not trying to attack the allegation by way of Avenatti. And they refused to subpoena any witnesses in Ford's hearing.

They didn't want to have a hearing with Ford, they just are refusing to have hearings about the other allegations, and are acting like "well case closed"

To be fair, neither of those "allegations" are relatively major or sticking points like this one was.

The first says she just thinks it may have been him because she saw him jostling his pants and that she was intoxicated.

The second isn't even accusing him of attacking her. Just as being present at a party where she was attacked.

Neither really has the level of the first accusation.
---

Also they didn't even fucking ask Kavanaugh shit of substance.

Their entire "investigation" was yell at dems for asking to investigate and saying "this is the investigation"
---

Corrik posted...

If they actually thought she was credible and compelling, they wouldn't be voting to confirm.

Multiple GOP Senators previously said that they didn't think the allegations would be disqualifying even if they were proven to be true (which is, imo, totally disgusting).
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Corrik posted...

If they actually thought she was credible and compelling, they wouldn't be voting to confirm.

Multiple GOP Senators previously said that they didn't think the allegations would be disqualifying even if they were proven to be true (which is, imo, totally disgusting).

If true, he wouldn't be confirmed. Not even sure why someone would say that figuring there is no chance of his confirmation at that point.
---

Corrik posted...

xp1337 posted...

Today's hearing wouldn't have been the place to raise it, but it's completely ridiculous that the GOP is trying to act like "Well, we had a hearing. Due diligence done!"

They've refused to respond back to Ramirez's requests that she be heard and are just disregarding Swetnick at best, if not trying to attack the allegation by way of Avenatti. And they refused to subpoena any witnesses in Ford's hearing.

They didn't want to have a hearing with Ford, they just are refusing to have hearings about the other allegations, and are acting like "well case closed"

To be fair, neither of those "allegations" are relatively major or sticking points like this one was.

The first says she just thinks it may have been him because she saw him jostling his pants and that she was intoxicated.

The second isn't even accusing him of attacking her. Just as being present at a party where she was attacked.

Neither really has the level of the first accusation.

Quotation marks again, huh? Really giving away your game here, huh?

"The first" also says she recalls hearing another student shout his full name identifying him as the one who did it. And The New Yorker found another student who independently recalled many of the same details Ramirez did.

"The second" isn't just claiming he was there, she's alleging that she saw him engage "in abusive and physically aggressive behavior towards girls" at these parties where they were getting girls inebriated for the express purpose of assault.

And again, they refused to call Judge in to testify before them despite the fact that he is brought up in both Ford and Swetnick's allegations.
---

xp1337 posted...

Corrik posted...

xp1337 posted...

Today's hearing wouldn't have been the place to raise it, but it's completely ridiculous that the GOP is trying to act like "Well, we had a hearing. Due diligence done!"

They've refused to respond back to Ramirez's requests that she be heard and are just disregarding Swetnick at best, if not trying to attack the allegation by way of Avenatti. And they refused to subpoena any witnesses in Ford's hearing.

They didn't want to have a hearing with Ford, they just are refusing to have hearings about the other allegations, and are acting like "well case closed"

To be fair, neither of those "allegations" are relatively major or sticking points like this one was.

The first says she just thinks it may have been him because she saw him jostling his pants and that she was intoxicated.

The second isn't even accusing him of attacking her. Just as being present at a party where she was attacked.

Neither really has the level of the first accusation.

Quotation marks again, huh? Really giving away your game here, huh?

"The first" also says she recalls hearing another student shout his full name identifying him as the one who did it. And The New Yorker found another student who independently recalled many of the same details Ramirez did.

"The second" isn't just claiming he was there, she's alleging that she saw him engage "in abusive and physically aggressive behavior towards girls" at these parties where they were getting girls inebriated for the express purpose of assault.

And again, they refused to call Judge in to testify before them despite the fact that he is brought up in both Ford and Swetnick's allegations.

I mean, I am going to say we are agreeing because I don't see where you are disagreeing that any of these are major or sticking points in comparison to "100%" sure he attempted to rape her.
---

Corrik posted...

I am going to say we are agreeing

Don't.

Maybe you think those allegations aren't important but don't you dare try to lump me in with you there.
---

xp1337 posted...

Corrik posted...

I am going to say we are agreeing

Don't.

Maybe you think those allegations aren't important but don't you dare try to lump me in with you there.

?
---

I think Kavanaugh damaged himself greatly today and will have the lowest base amount of credibility of any Supreme Court Justice and that this process will have done permanent damage to the institution.

If you think that wont have consequences you re crazy.

You think we wont end up with 11 then 13 then 15 justices? Once its no longer sacred the rules go out the window.
---

Eddv posted...

I think Kavanaugh damaged himself greatly today and will have the lowest base amount of credibility of any Supreme Court Justice and that this process will have done permanent damage to the institution.

If you think that wont have consequences you re crazy.

You think we wont end up with 11 then 13 then 15 justices? Once its no longer sacred the rules go out the window.

I think you are making excuses in order to pack the court and find a high ground to support doing so.
---

Last I checked I am not a political operative. I am not the king of the Democratic Party.

The idea of packing the court has become openly tossed around as a result of killing the filibuster and how brazenly political this Kavanaugh process is.

You can hate on that all you want but it is a consequence of all of this. Actions have consequences and the consequence for having a Supreme Court Nominee testify that he felt he was the victim of a wide ranging conspiracy by the Clintons and the Democratic party and going on to be confirmes will mean the next time a Democrat holds office you can expect the same in kind.

Gone are the days of Merrick Garland and other moderate nominees. That is the result of this.
---

lmao

eddv is barely a democrat

(no offense meant, i don't view that as inherently bad or whatever. i'm barely even a democrat, although in a different direction than eddv)
---

is she going to make abortion double illegal
---

The process matters.

I'm not sure how much more plainly to put it.

Maybe youve forgotten how this all works. Our institutions need to be legitimate. All governments need this. In the American case that legitimacy is drawn from having fair and open processes with public oversight.

If you lose that you lose...everything.
---

after "I USE MY CALENDARS AS DIARIES" and many other things, i'll 100% take barrett over kavanaugh. allegations aside, kavanaugh is obviously a lunatic who's totally unfit for the position.
---

So, Im tired of this dog and pony show, and I cant find it anywhere else so Im asking here.

Are we still having the confirmation vote today so he can be in the court next week?

I dont need nor want anything else, just that answer
---

The senate judiciary committee is voting in 10 minutes.

Not sure when it goes to the senate as a whole, which as i understand it is the next step.
---

I think they said they wanted to have the Senaye vote tomorrow
---

Senaye

ok iPhone
---

pxlated posted...

The senate judiciary committee is voting in 10 minutes.

Not sure when it goes to the senate as a whole, which as i understand it is the next step.

The Mana Sword posted...

I think they said they wanted to have the Senaye vote tomorrow

Thank you both
---

Corrik posted...

If they actually thought she was credible and compelling, they wouldn't be voting to confirm.

What makes you believe that?
---

Eddv posted...

The process matters.

I'm not sure how much more plainly to put it.

Maybe youve forgotten how this all works. Our institutions need to be legitimate. All governments need this. In the American case that legitimacy is drawn from having fair and open processes with public oversight.

If you lose that you lose...everything.

Exactly.
If Brett cared at all about the sanctity of the institution, instead of just himself, he would have withdrawn a long time ago.
---

https://twitter.com/WillieGeist/status/1045666932194725888?s=19

Flake is a YES
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgyeUHH_V0g" data-time="
---

Grassley doesn't even know kavanaugh's first name.

He has said brent every single time
---

pxlated posted...

Grassley doesn't even know kavanaugh's first name.

He has said brent every single time

love to have a bunch of old shriveled nutsacks running the country
---

Gee, thanks for that image, Kleenex.

Appreciate it
---

np
---

did someone say nuts
---

Actually, i might be enjoying this more now that all i can see is scrotum.

Not sure what this says about me.

Thanks, kleenex.
---

np

.
---

neonreaper posted...

did someone say nuts

I almost mentioned you, and the fact that you showed up immediately honestly makes me really happy.
---

It's really telling that Kavanaugh doesn't want an investigation. He wants to be on the supreme court no matter what, and that is EXACTLY the kind of person you don't want on the supreme court. Regardless of if they're liberal or conservative. I think that alone should disqualify him from the position.
---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-sees-a-7-degree-rise-in-global-temperatures-by-2100/2018/09/27/ b9c6fada-bb45-11e8-bdc0-90f81cc58c5d_story.html

We are doomed
---

Ashethan posted...

It's really telling that Kavanaugh doesn't want an investigation. He wants to be on the supreme court no matter what, and that is EXACTLY the kind of person you don't want on the supreme court. Regardless of if they're liberal or conservative. I think that alone should disqualify him from the position.

Regardless of absolutely anything else, "this is all a plot to get revenge for the clintons" ought to be immediately and unquestionably disqualifying.
---

This whole argument that the dempcrats took too long to bring the accussations to the committee so therefore we dont need to do anything else is absolutely bogus.

Even disregarding the reasons for having withheld it, such as ford asking to remain confidential etc, this is bogus. So the democrats fucked up. They played dirty, if thats how you want to spin it. So? Does that mean that these things suddenly shouldnt be investigated thoroughly by trained professionals? That we shouldnt at the very least have the fbi interviee mark judge? That we shouldnt talk to the other accusers to at least get professional input on the validity of their claims and not just the stories floating around the media?

The democrats timeliness or lack thereof doesn't suddenly mean the protocol should be changed.

Chastise and punish the democrats on the committee if you feel they handled this incorrectly. Don't punish the entire credibility and institution of the supreme court.
---

Corrik posted...

To be fair, neither of those "allegations" are relatively major or sticking points like this one was.

The first says she just thinks it may have been him because she saw him jostling his pants and that she was intoxicated.

Actually no, Debbie Ramirez is the one with the most coroborating evidence, because she wasn't the one who came forward. Literally it was an email thread of Brett's Yale classmates saying "I wonder if the fact that Brett shoved his dick in Debbie's face will come out during the hearings?" With multiple people from that thread confirming to reporters that this event did happen.

Like...I actually don't think there's any dispute that event happened, and no real dispute it was Brett. It's also...the most minor of the charges against him. (Indecent exposure basically, as opposed to attempted rape).
---

Just a reminder: if Dems were going to fake an allegation, they most certainly wouldve done so when Neil Gorsuch was up for Merrick Garlands seat. Yet no allegations surfaced then. Its almost like a scumbag frat boy might ACTUALLY have done scummy things in his life.

So conservatrolls, enjoy your victory. I hope you feel genuinely happy about supporting rapists and pedophiles whenever your party decides that being decent human beings is less important than playing identity politics to piss off liberals.

And Ulti? Dont you EVER fucking lie about being the victim of assault again. You dont GET to make that shit up after accusing women of lying and damaging the credibility of real victims.
---

Espeon posted...

So conservatrolls, enjoy your victory. I hope you feel genuinely happy about supporting rapists and pedophiles whenever your party decides that being decent human beings is less important than playing identity politics to piss off liberals.

:)
---

Espeon posted...

And Ulti? Dont you EVER f***ing lie about being the victim of assault again. You dont GET to make that s*** up after accusing women of lying and damaging the credibility of real victims.

>:-(
---

I like how SephyG admits he's a troll there.

Rumor has it Collins, Donnelly, Murkowski, and Manchin are all voting the same way. I assume it will all be "yes."
---

Espeon posted...

So conservatrolls, enjoy your victory. I hope you feel genuinely happy about supporting rapists and pedophiles whenever your party decides that being decent human beings is less important than playing identity politics to piss off liberals.

i genuinely thought they wouldn't sink that low.

"whoops"
---

Espeon posted...

And Ulti?

Why do you even pretend this garbage exists? It's not worth your time or brainpower.