?️ Official Supreme Court nomination thread

[JIslander 2,730]

11 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

I can’t fully speak for Mr. Sand but I think we reasonably assume he means it’s about speaking out/caring for the life that has no voice for itself not the diabolically framed, “I MUST FULLY CONTROL ALL WOMEN’S BODIES *cackle*”

 

Who's "we"?

And is it really a "cackle"? Albeit, you've exaggerated it a bit...

[Hugh Jass 392]

5 minutes ago, proninja said:

Sure. That's reasonable. But you're still proponents of forced birth, and that's absolutely controlling a woman's body whether or not it's the motivation behind your belief or not. 

Sure.  As always it’s how hostile you want the language to be...it’s the pro-choicers version of “baby killer”. Whatever

[Hugh Jass 392]

1 minute ago, JIslander said:

Who's "we"?

And is it really a "cackle"? Albeit, you've exaggerated it a bit...

*we can.  

[JIslander 2,730]

2 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

*we can.  

Well not sure that includes me if it's a collective "us" you are inferring.

[Maurile Tremblay 18,699]

2 hours ago, squistion said:

The New York Times reports that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford will, tentatively, testify Thursday about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged attempt to rape her when they were teenagers:

I don’t know who is advising her, but I would urge her to testify confidently instead.

[Hugh Jass 392]

1 minute ago, proninja said:

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to use a term that offended you. What term would you prefer I use for using the force of law to make sure a woman keeps her baby to term and delivers it?

‘You’ didn’t do anything...I was helping Sand clarify his sentence which on its own sounded silly.

[Henry Ford 57,703]

1 hour ago, Sand said:

Or that it has nothing to do with a woman's body at all.

That would be an interesting argument. 

[Long Ball Larry 11,351]

2 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

I should be clearer.  I’ve been fairly focused lately on a rather high stakes game of pitch and toss I’m playing. 

that's a mighty big If.

[Sand 4,271]

24 minutes ago, JIslander said:

And is it really a "cackle"? 

Absolutely a cackle.

[zoonation 3,854]

3 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Normally, this analysis would be exactly right.  If Nominee A is compromised, just yank him and send up Nominee B.  But in the actual world that we live in, Nominee B has no chance of being confirmed if the Democrats take the Senate.  So Rs are being given the choice of confirm the lousy nominee or lose the seat to the blue tribe.  That's what's driving much of this.

Obviously much of this is the red tribe's doing.  The blue tribe's thirst for revenge isn't helping.

I dont think the GOP has any real concerns about losing the senate.  Better safe than sorry though, I guess. 

[JIslander 2,730]

9 minutes ago, Sand said:

Absolutely a cackle.

Lol. Ok. Well, I do agree it is "diabolical"

Keep your gubmint out of womens bodies.

[Hugh Jass 392]

22 minutes ago, JIslander said:

Lol. Ok. Well, I do agree it is "diabolical"

Keep your gubmint out of womens bodies.

Deal. Oh wait, keep da vacuums off da babies. 

[JIslander 2,730]

9 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

Deal. Oh wait, keep da vacuums off da babies. 

Dere not "babies" I'm done

[Bucky86 15,624]

CNN has some splainin’ to do 

https://twitter.com/philippereines/status/1043679881937268736?s=21

[Sweet J 2,809]

1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I don’t know who is advising her, but I would urge her to testify confidently instead.

There you go making me think of Star Trek again.  Any talk of split infinitives . . . . 

[Sand 4,271]

1 hour ago, Hugh Jass said:

‘You’ didn’t do anything...I was helping Sand clarify his sentence which on its own sounded silly.

I found it to be succinct.  These guys are (mostly) smart enough to know what's what.  Guys like Henry respond just to poke and create a kerfuffle (<---Note: nothing wrong with that).

Edited September 23, 2018 by Sand

[Henry Ford 57,703]

58 minutes ago, Sand said:

I found it to be succinct.  These guys are (mostly) smart enough to know what's what.  Guys like Henry respond just to poke and create a kerfuffle (<---Note: nothing wrong with that).

I do not respond just to poke and create a kerfuffle.  I respect your right to your opinion, I am not a fan of abortion and it would probably end any romantic relationship I’ve ever been in if a woman I was with had one while we were together, but I do tend to feel that banning abortion is analogous to enslaving women.  I try to get that viewpoint across as inoffensively as possible. 

[No One 566]

Tom Joad @JohnnyBlkshrt

Franklin Graham: Attempted rape not a crime. Kavanaugh "respected" his victim by not finishing.

 

Howard Dean‏Verified account @GovHowardDean Sep 21

Welcome to evangelical Christianity. What a fraud.

 

[ProstheticRGK 3,354]

On 9/21/2018 at 8:21 AM, Zow said:

So Hillary never did anything wrong, right?

Takedown- 2 points. Blue.

[Henry Ford 57,703]

I’d be interested to see the Venn Diagram of people who are sympathetic to alleged victims of Catholic Priest abuse who didn’t report it for decades versus people who are outraged by Christine Blasey Ford’s claims. 

[Stuart Ullman 840]

1 hour ago, Henry Ford said:

I’d be interested to see the Venn Diagram of people who are sympathetic to alleged victims of Catholic Priest abuse who didn’t report it for decades versus people who are outraged by Christine Blasey Ford’s claims. 

@proninja did it better.

Edited September 23, 2018 by Stuart Ullman

[Snickers 794]

Ford’s friend who was at the party with her has no recollection of the party and states she doesn’t know Kavanaugh.

To me, this really brings into question all the rumblings about there being a buzz around school right after the alleged incident. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/09/22/politics/kavanaugh-ford-accuser-nomination/index.html

 

[Juxtatarot 7,938]

1 hour ago, Snickers said:

Ford’s friend who was at the party with her has no recollection of the party and states she doesn’t know Kavanaugh.

To me, this really brings into question all the rumblings about there being a buzz around school right after the alleged incident. 

 

Yes. But I never thought the “buzz” story made sense according to what Ford has said. Plus it came from a deleted Facebook post.

Ford’s friend not remembering anything about this party is going to give Collins, Murkowski, and other Republicans who might have been on the fence enough cover to vote to confirm.

[bigbottom 8,231]

1 hour ago, Snickers said:

Ford’s friend who was at the party with her has no recollection of the party and states she doesn’t know Kavanaugh.

To me, this really brings into question all the rumblings about there being a buzz around school right after the alleged incident. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/09/22/politics/kavanaugh-ford-accuser-nomination/index.html

 

Wait, so there is time to do an investigation?  Let’s get these people interviewed by the FBI. 

[parasaurolophus 4,456]

New member to ford legal team

 

[IvanKaramazov 15,440]

2 hours ago, Snickers said:

Ford’s friend who was at the party with her has no recollection of the party and states she doesn’t know Kavanaugh.

To me, this really brings into question all the rumblings about there being a buzz around school right after the alleged incident. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/09/22/politics/kavanaugh-ford-accuser-nomination/index.html

 

I never gave the "buzz" story any credibility to begin with.  It wasn't consistent with Ford's account and got retracted nearly immediately.

However, the story originally was that there were four boys at this party, plus Ford.  Now all of the sudden there's another girl there.  That's not a huge issue, but it is a change.  If only there were some kind of bureau, perhaps at the federal level, that could investigate this thing.

[parasaurolophus 4,456]

3 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I never gave the "buzz" story any credibility to begin with.  It wasn't consistent with Ford's account and got retracted nearly immediately.

However, the story originally was that there were four boys at this party, plus Ford.  Now all of the sudden there's another girl there.  That's not a huge issue, but it is a change.  If only there were some kind of bureau, perhaps at the federal level, that could investigate this thing.

I thought i had read very early on that i had heard there were four boys and two girls. I had said something about that and it was questioned and i could not find the link. I wasnt too hung up on the detail so i didnt really look that hard and figured i could have easily been confused by the whole therapist note discrepancy. 

[SaintsInDome2006 41,273]

2 hours ago, Snickers said:

Ford’s friend who was at the party with her has no recollection of the party and states she doesn’t know Kavanaugh.

To me, this really brings into question all the rumblings about there being a buzz around school right after the alleged incident. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/09/22/politics/kavanaugh-ford-accuser-nomination/index.html

 

Five people were at this party?

>>In a brief interview at her home in Silver Spring, Keyser said that she did not recall the party, but that she was close friends with Ford and that she believes Ford’s allegation. 

Before her name became public, Ford told The Post she did not think Keyser would remember the party because nothing remarkable had happened there, as far as Keyser was aware. Ford has said she did not tell anyone about the alleged assault until 2012.<<

- From the linked WaPo story.

There’s nothing Dem or GOP about this story. There’s no reason for Trump critics to mostly believe Ford and for Trump supporters to mostly disbelieve her. This is obviously something that takes more investigation to figure out what went on. I will say 5 people is hardly what I would ordinarily call a party, I was imagining something much larger and more raucous.

[Juxtatarot 7,938]

It’s also interesting that Keyser says she doesn’t “know” Kavanaugh. I’d like to see a diagram of the five people connecting who claims to “know” whom.

[IvanKaramazov 15,440]

3 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

It’s also interesting that Keyser says she doesn’t “know” Kavanaugh. I’d like to see a diagram of the five people connecting who claims to “know” whom.

Yeah, I'm trying to avoid getting too worked up over every little twist and turn in this story.  But as I think it about, it seems like this is possibly a big deal.  

Brett Kavanaugh has an obvious incentive to lie.  So does Mark Judge, who isn't even reliable to begin with.  I don't know enough about the "PJ" person to have an opinion about him, and I don't see it as noteworthy that he doesn't remember a party that would have been just another get-together for him.  

I do find it noteworthy that a lifelong friend of Ford says that not only does she not recall this party (again, not surprising) but that she doesn't even know Brett Kavanaugh.  This is coming from someone who says she believes Ford's accusation, is a personal friend of her's, and is apparently a Democrat.  This is somebody who has every reason to weigh in on behalf of Ford, and instead she's adding a detail that seems pretty exculpatory to me.

[SaintsInDome2006 41,273]

48 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I never gave the "buzz" story any credibility to begin with.  It wasn't consistent with Ford's account and got retracted nearly immediately.

However, the story originally was that there were four boys at this party, plus Ford.  Now all of the sudden there's another girl there.  That's not a huge issue, but it is a change.  If only there were some kind of bureau, perhaps at the federal level, that could investigate this thing.

The psychiatrist's notes said Ford said there were 4 boys in the room, and Ford corrected that by saying that it was a misunderstanding and actually there were 4 boys at the party. Now there were 3 boys, 2 girls (including Ford).

I'm also wondering what Ford says about her leaving the party. It makes total sense to me that a girl would go with a girlfriend to a pool party (talking HS here). It's not clear if Ford left with Keyser or if she simply left and in doing so left Keyser. And if she up and left she must have been very flustered and upset after what happened. It seems to me Keyser would either remember Ford leaving her alone at a party with 3 guys she didn't know (including it would later turn out 2 who had just assaulted Ford) or Keyser would remember abruptly leaving with a very disturbed Ford. It's more than possible Ford left with Keyser and masked what had happened, maybe out of fear or misplaced shame, but that just needs to be explained.

Edited September 23, 2018 by SaintsInDome2006

[Dinsy Ejotuz 10,709]

Quote

it appears someone communicated her name to Whelan before it was made public. (Last Sunday, “Ford alerted an associate via email that Whelan had looked at her LinkedIn page, according to the email, which was reviewed by The Post. LinkedIn allows some subscribers to see who views their pages. Ford sent the email about 90 minutes after The Post shared her name with a White House spokesman and hours before her identity was revealed in a story posted on its website.”

Huh.  Ford's name is shared with the WH before article publishes.  Someone immediately contacts Whelan who immediately views her LinkedIn Page and then coordinates with a conservative hatchet-job PR firm to defame an innocent man and divert attention away from Kavanaugh.

Seems like we'd better get to the bottom of that before we confirm.  Put The Post reporter and Whelan under oath in front of the committee to find out who told him and what Kavanaugh knew about the scheme.

Would certainly be grounds for Impeachment if Kavanaugh denies involvement and it was later shown that he was in the middle of it.  Exactly how did the WH know to contact Kavanaugh's friend (Whelan) in the first place?

(Can't believe Republicans haven't ditched the cement boots yet.  The water is rising and there's still a lot of rain to fall.)

Edited September 23, 2018 by Dinsy Ejotuz

[avoiding injuries 3,220]

30 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Yeah, I'm trying to avoid getting too worked up over every little twist and turn in this story.  But as I think it about, it seems like this is possibly a big deal.  

Brett Kavanaugh has an obvious incentive to lie.  So does Mark Judge, who isn't even reliable to begin with.  I don't know enough about the "PJ" person to have an opinion about him, and I don't see it as noteworthy that he doesn't remember a party that would have been just another get-together for him.  

I do find it noteworthy that a lifelong friend of Ford says that not only does she not recall this party (again, not surprising) but that she doesn't even know Brett Kavanaugh.  This is coming from someone who says she believes Ford's accusation, is a personal friend of her's, and is apparently a Democrat.  This is somebody who has every reason to weigh in on behalf of Ford, and instead she's adding a detail that seems pretty exculpatory to me.

Has that swayed your opinion any?

[IvanKaramazov 15,440]

1 minute ago, avoiding injuries said:

Has that swayed your opinion any?

I need to think it over.  I'm heading out to the Bills-Vikings game in a couple of minutes so I'm going to step away from this story for a while.

[tommyGunZ 3,419]

1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

 I do find it noteworthy that a lifelong friend of Ford says that not only does she not recall this party (again, not surprising) but that she doesn't even know Brett Kavanaugh.  This is coming from someone who says she believes Ford's accusation, is a personal friend of her's, and is apparently a Democrat.  This is somebody who has every reason to weigh in on behalf of Ford, and instead she's adding a detail that seems pretty exculpatory to me.

You have to remember that these kids did not go to school together.  So lots of parties are at peoples homes who you don’t really know, as compared to coed HS where you see the people every day.  

[parasaurolophus 4,456]

29 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Huh.  Ford's name is shared with the WH before article publishes.  Someone immediately contacts Whelan who immediately views her LinkedIn Page and then coordinates with a conservative hatchet-job PR firm to defame an innocent man and divert attention away from Kavanaugh.

Seems like we'd better get to the bottom of that before we confirm.  Put The Post reporter and Whelan under oath in front of the committee to find out who told him and what Kavanaugh knew about the scheme.

Would certainly be grounds for Impeachment if Kavanaugh denies involvement and it was later shown that he was in the middle of it.  Exactly how did the WH know to contact Kavanaugh's friend (Whelan) in the first place?

(Can't believe Republicans haven't ditched the cement boots yet.  The water is rising and there's still a lot of rain to fall.)

Story broke on Thursday where we found out that it was somebody that lives in the bay area and is affiliated with Stanford and knew kavanaugh from high school. How hard would it be for somebody inside Kavanaugh's circle to find a woman on linkedin with that criteria before sunday evening? I think he should be asked some questions about it to be sure, but definitely not as damning as many people are making it seem. 

 

 

[tommyGunZ 3,419]

Like Ivan, I’m also trying to stay away from the everyday “news”, as very little is actual news. 

By far the most important piece of evidence thus far is the note from the therapist back in 2012.  

[Snickers 794]

6 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

You have to remember that these kids did not go to school together.  So lots of parties are at peoples homes who you don’t really know, as compared to coed HS where you see the people every day.  

There were only 5-6 people at this party

[Sand 4,271]

16 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

By far the most important piece of evidence thus far is the note from the therapist back in 2012.  

Given there is very little else to grab onto this is true.

[Rove! 2,042]

16 hours ago, bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

I don't get it, whats so hard here......screw this guy and nominate someone else......

I don’t know if we want to to set a precedent where one accusation with zero corroboration is enough to block the confirmation of an otherwise highly qualified judge.

 

[Sand 4,271]

15 minutes ago, Matthias said:

Politico collated some political cartoons from this week. Since Republicans only know how to attack it's not a good look for them.

https://www.politico.com/gallery/2018/09/21/the-nations-cartoonists-on-the-week-in-politics-003005?slide=0

#8 is awesome.  

[Bruce Dickinson 17,355]

1 minute ago, Sand said:

Given there is very little else to grab onto this is true.

Kavanaugh’s pattern of behavior of not telling the truth and his handlers’ pattern of behavior of concealing information at every opportunity should be compelling.

Dr. Ford’s pattern of behavior consistent with someone who was the victim of sexual assault, and taking the steps consistent with someone telling the truth should be compelling.

Remember, the prupose here isn’t to determine if there’s enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh of a crime.  The purpose here is to determine if Kavanaugh has the character to serve on the Supreme Court.  

The people who nominated Kavanaugh are all acting like they know he lacks the necessary character.  That should be enough to drop him even if we’d never heard about Dr. Ford.  Dr. Ford’s story is running up the score against Kavanaugh in this confrimation process.

[Bruce Dickinson 17,355]

3 minutes ago, Rove! said:

I don’t know if we want to to set a precedent where one accusation with zero corroboration is enough to block the confirmation of an otherwise highly qualified judge.

I don’t want to, either.  Fortunately, that’s not even remotely close to what’s going on here.  

If you have to tell lies like this and can’t stick to the truth, it’s time to throw this nominee back and find another one. 

[Bruce Dickinson 17,355]

6 minutes ago, Matthias said:

I'm not sure how Republicans are holding onto the doublespeak ideas of this investigation being flawed because there's no evidence but that conducting an investigation to see what evidence could be uncovered is a waste of time.

Practice.  Lots of practice.

[tommyGunZ 3,419]

12 minutes ago, Matthias said:

I'm not sure how Republicans are holding onto the doublespeak ideas of this investigation being flawed because there's no evidence but that conducting an investigation to see what evidence could be uncovered is a waste of time.

New to Republican ideas?  

[bicycle_seat_sniffer 4,619]

20 minutes ago, Rove! said:

I don’t know if we want to to set a precedent where one accusation with zero corroboration is enough to block the confirmation of an otherwise highly qualified judge.

 

How about no hearings at all because one party is in power???

[Bruce Dickinson 17,355]

Just now, bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

How about no hearings at all because one party is in power???

At the Supreme Court and lower courts.  

Paraphrasing Chris Hayes, we’re hearing one side saying this process is moving too quickly to make them comfortable and want to slow it down to make sure it’s done right, and the other side deciding to ignore those pleas, plow through, and take what they think is rightfully theirs.

[timschochet 24,389]

If her testimony is compelling, very little of what we are discussing now is going to matter. 

If her testimony is not compelling, very little of what we are discussing now is going to matter. 

We already know that many people have predetermined in their minds whether they’re going to find her compelling or not. But a lot of us haven’t. 

[Snickers 794]

11 minutes ago, Matthias said:

Overwhelmingly Independents said that they weren't sure or lacked enough information to judge. The disparity between Independents finding her credible vs not was very slim. There was also a deficit between men finding her credible vs not of -6%. and +2% for women. Or, to present the data another way, 34% of men thought that she was not credible vs 23% of women. An 11% gap much higher than the 3% gap of thinking that she was credible. Also men were more sure with only 39% thinking there needed to be more information with 53% of women saying the same. Trump voters were far and away the least likely to think that there needed to be any more information, at a bare 20%.

If you're going to summarize survey results you have to look at holistically. And not just cherry pick a couple of numbers.

Nobody has heard Ford speak on the matter 

[timschochet 24,389]

Truly embarrassing interview with Franklin Graham:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/preacher-franklin-graham-says-sexual-183046010.html

First he says it’s OK because Ford said no and Kavanaugh stopped. Then when he was informed that never happened, he says its irrelevant anyhow because boys will be boys and they were just teenagers. 

This is the same leader of the Christian Right, son of Billy Graham, who has made every excuse in the book for Trump’s behavior and statements. And yet he continues to hold himself up as a moral leader and millions of devout people listen to him.