Current Events > Reminder: Kavanaugh is not on trial

(+) Yeah! (+)

The hearings are for a job interview, to be promoted to the Supreme Court. Please stop trying to make the innocent before proven guilty argument like it means anything in this context

Thanks
---

He hasn't been charged with anything so how can he be guilty of anything.
---

We both know the meaning changes with context

Being guilty of something and the legal definition of guilt are both different
---

Alpha218 posted...

The hearings are for a job interview,

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/sen-graham-kavanaugh-not-job-interview-hell

With a job, just having a connection to someone who has been accused of something can be enough to not get it.
---

We understand that. we just dont want to set a precedent where, going forward, we cant just pay someone some money to claim he/she was assaulted by a future candidate.

Do you understand that precedent? Theres too much going against Dr Ford. I have to take the side of the accused if there isnt enough evidence
---

A job you're incapable of being fired from.

Zikten posted...

Alpha218 posted...

The hearings are for a job interview,

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/sen-graham-kavanaugh-not-job-interview-hell

please stop taking this out of context, he's saying it is a job interview w/ these words
---

Irregardless posted...

A job you're incapable of being fired from.

You can be removed.
---

Caution999 posted...

We understand that. we just dont want to set a precedent where, going forward, we cant just pay someone some money to claim he/she was assaulted by a future candidate.

Do you understand that precedent? Theres too much going against Dr Ford. I have to take the side of the accused if there isnt enough evidence

Just stay out of political topics man. It's for the best.

rikasa posted...

Zikten posted...

Alpha218 posted...

The hearings are for a job interview,

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/sen-graham-kavanaugh-not-job-interview-hell

please stop taking this out of context, he's saying it is a job interview w/ these words

Zikten being wrong? Color me shocked.

ThatMuttGuy posted...

Caution999 posted...

We understand that. we just dont want to set a precedent where, going forward, we cant just pay someone some money to claim he/she was assaulted by a future candidate.

Do you understand that precedent? Theres too much going against Dr Ford. I have to take the side of the accused if there isnt enough evidence

Just stay out of political topics man. It's for the best.

Im doing good man :)

I havent had any melties >_>
Im posting a lot...better
---

His behavior during the interview should've disqualified him immediately

rikasa posted...

please stop taking this out of context, he's saying it is a job interview w/ these words

how is he saying it's a job interview by saying "this is not a job interview"?

Why don't they pay actors to claim rape? They should. I think they should try. I fully welcome the parties to try it and accept the consequences when they're exposed.
---

Zikten posted...

rikasa posted...

please stop taking this out of context, he's saying it is a job interview w/ these words

how is he saying it's a job interview by saying "this is not a job interview"?

He is saying that it is a job interview that isn't going the way a job interview is supposed to go.
---

Zikten posted...

rikasa posted...

please stop taking this out of context, he's saying it is a job interview w/ these words

how is he saying it's a job interview by saying "this is not a job interview"?

CONTEXT. I know it's complicated (not to me, but apparently to some).
---

EggNogPrince posted...

Caution999 posted...

We understand that we just dont want to set a precedent where, going forward, we cant just pay someone some money to claim he/she was assaulted by a future candidate.

Yep. That is why I hope he gets confirmed. If he doesn't this is just going to happen again and again. This goes for both sides. The GOP could stall democrat nominees by doing this too. People often forget that the things used by the minority party can be used when the balance shifts.

Just like it happened to Gorsuch right?

The biggest difference between Gorsuch and Kavanaugh that people dont pick up on is that Gorsuch was vetted far more than Kavanaugh was. Gorsuch was picked by the Herritage Foundation for Trump to nominate. Kavanaugh was vetted by the Trump admin (notoriously bad at vetting candidates based on some of the previous horrendous failures some of the nominees had in a GOP controlled congress) and was specifically picked for his views of executive overreach and Roe v Wade.
---

Caution999 posted...

ThatMuttGuy posted...

Caution999 posted...

We understand that. we just dont want to set a precedent where, going forward, we cant just pay someone some money to claim he/she was assaulted by a future candidate.

Do you understand that precedent? Theres too much going against Dr Ford. I have to take the side of the accused if there isnt enough evidence

Just stay out of political topics man. It's for the best.

Im doing good man :)

I havent had any melties >_>
Im posting a lot...better

Don't kid yourself. You've had meltdowns this week.
---

Alpha218 posted...

The hearings are for a job interview, to be promoted to the Supreme Court. Please stop trying to make the innocent before proven guilty argument like it means anything in this context

Thanks

Then why are you and others calling for an FBI investigation (after the FBI already ran 6 background checks) for a mere job interview

You can't have it both ways.
---

Funbazooka posted...

Alpha218 posted...

The hearings are for a job interview, to be promoted to the Supreme Court. Please stop trying to make the innocent before proven guilty argument like it means anything in this context

Thanks

Then why are you and others calling for an FBI investigation (after the FBI already ran 6 background checks) into a mere job interview

You can't have it both ways.

NO BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR JOBS
---

Caution999 posted...

We understand that. we just dont want to set a precedent where, going forward, we cant just pay someone some money to claim he/she was assaulted by a future candidate.

That precedent already exists. Ppl have been hiring and firing based on hunches for 10000 years. Nothing's changed.
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

Caution999 posted...

We understand that. we just dont want to set a precedent where, going forward, we cant just pay someone some money to claim he/she was assaulted by a future candidate.

That precedent already exists. Ppl have been hiring and firing based on hunches for 10000 years. Nothing's changed.

The hunch is that Kavanaugh is innocent, and he is innocent by definition.

The Senate Judiciary Committee apparently has higher standards. The point is that if there is so little evidence that he wouldn't even be charged then there's no reason for them not to vote him in, since before all this he was properly vetted. The accusation hasn't brought forth anything substantial.
---

Zikten posted...

Alpha218 posted...

The hearings are for a job interview,

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/sen-graham-kavanaugh-not-job-interview-hell

Please stop being lazy and only reading the headlines. That article has nothing to do with the topic.
---

What job interview has it's interviewers accuse you of rape?
---

Funbazooka posted...

The hunch is that Kavanaugh is innocent, and he is innocent by definition.

He is not guilty, ONLY from a criminal legal standard, right now. We'll know more from a FULL investigation.
---

Cornmuffins posted...

Please stop being lazy and only reading the headlines. That article has nothing to do with the topic.

I was literally watching CNN when he said it yesterday. I saw it live. I just posted the article to prove a point.

DirkDiggles posted...

What job interview has it's interviewers accuse you of rape?

Roy Moore ran for re-election. Rape accusations convinced his boss not to re-hire him.
---

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/77045929

Funbazooka posted...

The point is that if there is so little evidence that he wouldn't even be charged then there's no reason for them not to vote him in, since before all this he was properly vetted.

The point is that he HASN'T been properly vetted. The FBI hasn't looked into this new information.
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

Funbazooka posted...

The hunch is that Kavanaugh is innocent, and he is innocent by definition.

He is not guilty, ONLY from a criminal legal standard, right now. We'll know more from a FULL investigation.

It's just a job interview
---

If you were applying for a job, and someone called the place you were applying and said you had raped them, theyd rescind any offer no questions asked

Kavanaugh is getting far more leeway than anyone else would in a hiring process
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

Funbazooka posted...

The point is that if there is so little evidence that he wouldn't even be charged then there's no reason for them not to vote him in, since before all this he was properly vetted.

The point is that he HASN'T been properly vetted. The FBI hasn't looked into this new information.

He was properly vetted. Then an incredibly flimsy accusation that doesn't hold up to scrutiny popped up. It's not their jurisdiction unless special ordered to by the White House.
---

Funbazooka posted...

He was properly vetted. Then an incredibly flimsy accusation that doesn't hold up to scrutiny popped up. It's not their jurisdiction unless special ordered to by the White House.

How convenient that the White House hasn't ordered anything.
---

Funbazooka posted...

He was properly vetted.

And NOW he's not, in light of this new information.
---

Funbazooka posted...

It's just a job interview

Employers do investigations too.
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

Funbazooka posted...

It's just a job interview

Employers do investigations too.

They don't demand FBI investigations.

All I'm saying, you can't have it both ways. You can't go around saying "oh don't be silly it's just a job interview it isn't held to the same standards" but at the same time say it requires an FBI investigation.

Those are two contradictory sentiments.
---

Funbazooka posted...

They don't demand FBI investigations.

When the employer is the American people, yeah, they do. The FBI does background checks for the federal government, for important federal government job interviews.
---

lol this isn't up to the American people.

And even if it were, what you're arguing that it is so unlike any typical job interview that comparing to a typical job interview would obviously be pretty silly.
---

Funbazooka posted...

lol this isn't up to the American people.

Trump works for the American people (at least, he's supposed to). We're the boss. The vast majority of us want this. SO now it's up to us to pressure him into doing so. If he doesn't, then we'll find another President who will.
---

> "Innocent until guilty doesn't apply, it's not a criminal trial"
> "The local statute of limitations is SUPER relevant!"
---

You're really stretching here and you know it. But like I said, even if you insist that this is being decided directly by the American people... that contradicts the argument that this is "just a job interview".
---

Alpha218 posted...

The hearings are for a job interview, to be promoted to the Supreme Court. Please stop trying to make the innocent before proven guilty argument like it means anything in this context

Thanks

When was the last time you were accused of sexual assault by an interviewer?
---

Funbazooka posted...

You're really stretching here and you know it. But like I said, even if you insist that this is being decided directly by the American people... that contradicts the argument that this is "just a job interview".

It's still a job interview for a highly coveted job. Any whiff of impropriety, we move on to the next candidate. Are you not able to understand basic logic?
---

It's so unlike any other job interview that characterizing it as such is a misrepresentation.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. When people call it out for not holding up to scrutiny you say "nuh-uh it don't matter".

This whole argument that it's just a job interview, therefore any high standards are thrown out the window is pure and utter bullshit.

It's a weak attempt to dismiss any scrutiny of the allegation. That's all it is.
---

Funbazooka posted...

This whole argument that it's just a job interview, therefore any high standards are thrown out the window is pure and utter bullshit.

The presumption of innocence also assumes that a valid criminal investigation is occurring. No one is throwing out any standards.

The fact that this is a job interview demonstrates that just a WHIFF of impropriety means that we should move on to the next qualified candidate. The bigger the job, the higher standard we must have to have no whiffs.
---

It does matter when people here are literally calling him a rapist
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

The fact that this is a job interview demonstrates that just a WHIFF of impropriety means that we should move on to the next qualified candidate. The bigger the job, the higher standard we must have to have no whiffs.

If this is how it worked there would be no SC Justices or a government for that matter
---

Hes not officially on trial, but the opposition has made this into a kangaroo court. Eventually, you guys arent going to be able to move the bar any lower.
---