Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Captain Cranks

Brett Kavanaugh

Regarding BK's testimony on Thursday  

199 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Osaurus said:

This is hard for some folks

Agreed, but as far as I know, BK doesn't post here.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I get some more context for question #3?  Is the assumption that if the liar got voted down, a different liberal judge would take his place?  Or is there a possibility that vacancy might end up getting filled by a conservative judge?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that the title of this thread referred to some personal information you might have about Brett Kavanaugh (which while I’m not the least bit interested in, wouldn’t surprise me at all.) 

Edited by timschochet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Can I get some more context for question #3?  Is the assumption that if the liar got voted down, a different liberal judge would take his place?  Or is there a possibility that vacancy might end up getting filled by a conservative judge?

To me that would make no difference.

I hold the SC Justices to a very high standard - in terms of integrity.  If Kavanaugh was a liberal judge, and the alternative was Gorsuch.  I'd support the Gorsuch bid.

Kavanaugh is wholly unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court - no matter what you think happened between him and Dr. Ford.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

To me that would make no difference.

I hold the SC Justices to a very high standard - in terms of integrity.  If Kavanaugh was a liberal judge, and the alternative was Gorsuch.  I'd support the Gorsuch bid.

Kavanaugh is wholly unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court - no matter what you think happened between him and Dr. Ford.

I agree that it should not.  But I’m not perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The General said:

Guy seems way to vindictive and partisan to be the best choice for that spot. Conservatives should want better.

He is exactly what Trump supporters want.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

He is exactly what Trump supporters want.

For sure.

To Trump’s credit he actually is handling his public comments on this really well. Don’t get to say that too often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, timschochet said:

I thought that the title of this thread referred to some personal information you might have about Brett Kavanaugh (which while I’m not the least bit interested in, wouldn’t surprise me at all.) 

something about a joke and a frog

thanks, tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Dedfin said:

 

3 hours ago, timschochet said:

I thought that the title of this thread referred to some personal information you might have about Brett Kavanaugh (which while I’m not the least bit interested in, wouldn’t surprise me at all.) 

something about a joke and a frog

 

I'm just glad there was no reference to either Trump or a mushroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, No, No.

The pole is flawed.

Basically I expect every politician and sc justice to lie, have lied, or have skeletons in their closet. The degree of those transgressions would effect my answer to #2. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Yes, No, No.

The pole is flawed.

Basically I expect every politician and sc justice to lie, have lied, or have skeletons in their closet. The degree of those transgressions would effect my answer to #2. 

So okay to lie to the senate judiciary committee in your confirmation hearing to the SC so long as they are just small lies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Yes, No, No.

The pole is flawed.

Basically I expect every politician and sc justice to lie, have lied, or have skeletons in their closet. The degree of those transgressions would effect my answer to #2. 

That, to me, is a sad outlook - specifically as it relates to Supreme Court Justices.

Even for politicians, I would distinguish between campaign "promises" and outright dishonesty.  

I can live with skeletons in the closet - I really struggle with allowing a liar into a position of trust.*

 

*And, by lying, I mean intentional deceit, and not simply "puffing" or exaggerating.  As I look at Kavanaugh - I think he was probably exaggerating some of his high school exploits in the yearbook.  No problem for me.  I think he is intentionally lying about some of those things now - and that bothers me.  (I think he has lied about more serious matters - and for me an automatic disqualification, but even his willingness to lie about the small stuff says a lot about his character).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, zoonation said:

So okay to lie to the senate judiciary committee in your confirmation hearing to the SC so long as they are just small lies?

Lying about how much you drank in high school and lying about sexually assaulting a classmate are two different things. (see explanation below)

13 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

That, to me, is a sad outlook - specifically as it relates to Supreme Court Justices.

Even for politicians, I would distinguish between campaign "promises" and outright dishonesty.  

I can live with skeletons in the closet - I really struggle with allowing a liar into a position of trust.*

 

*And, by lying, I mean intentional deceit, and not simply "puffing" or exaggerating.  As I look at Kavanaugh - I think he was probably exaggerating some of his high school exploits in the yearbook.  No problem for me.  I think he is intentionally lying about some of those things now - and that bothers me.  (I think he has lied about more serious matters - and for me an automatic disqualification, but even his willingness to lie about the small stuff says a lot about his character).

It's the world we live in. I think we have an unreasonable expectation for our politicians. We can't even have an expectation for a priest to keep his hands to himself and he believes he answers to a divine power. Whether it's Kavanaugh, Trump, Obama, or you. I think everyone lies to protect their position. Especially when backed into a corner.

We've had two SC nominees go through a sexual harassment allegation during confirmation. Based on a general understanding of society over the past 50 years, do you think that non of the other SC Justices could be guilty of crossing a line when it comes to behavior that would be questioned? 

What we are left with, is making decisions based on what we know. We don't know the history of all other Justice's, so we assume the best of them. We may get more facts on Kavanaugh, which will allow me to make a more informed decision. As much as I think that he lied, I don't have any proof. If some becomes available, I will change my stance based on those findings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KCitons said:

We've had two SC nominees go through a sexual harassment allegation during confirmation. Based on a general understanding of society over the past 50 years, do you think that non of the other SC Justices could be guilty of crossing a line when it comes to behavior that would be questioned? 

I missed the sexual harassment allegations against Gorsuch, Or Kagan, or Sotomayor, or Alito, or Breyer, or Ginsburg, or Roberts (or Kennedy or Scalia).

I think there are numerous qualified jurists who are capable of sitting on the Supreme Court who are honest, decent, humans in addition to having sharp legal minds.  And, I think we owe it to our county to do our very best to find those jurists - no matter which side of the aisle you sit on.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KCitons said:

What we are left with, is making decisions based on what we know. We don't know the history of all other Justice's, so we assume the best of them. We may get more facts on Kavanaugh, which will allow me to make a more informed decision. As much as I think that he lied, I don't have any proof. If some becomes available, I will change my stance based on those findings. 

I have enough proof of Kavanaughs veracity, temperament, and independence to know with 100% certainty that he is unfit for the position.  I don't need to "know" anything about his encounter, or lack thereof, with Dr. Ford.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

I missed the sexual harassment allegations against Gorsuch, Or Kagan, or Sotomayor, or Alito, or Breyer, or Ginsburg, or Roberts (or Kennedy or Scalia).

I think there are numerous qualified jurists who are capable of sitting on the Supreme Court who are honest, decent, humans in addition to having sharp legal minds.  And, I think we owe it to our county to do our very best to find those jurists - no matter which side of the aisle you sit on.

If there is one thing we have learned this week is that victims are reluctant to come forward. Are you 100% confident that no other member of the SC hasn't stepped over a line at some point in their life? Keep in mind, I referenced the last 50 years. Times have changed, but they were much worse back then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I have enough proof of Kavanaughs veracity, temperament, and independence to know with 100% certainty that he is unfit for the position.  I don't need to "know" anything about his encounter, or lack thereof, with Dr. Ford.

That's your opinion. And I respect that. 

If you have 100% proof, then shouldn't the FBI have some as well? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, KCitons said:

That's your opinion. And I respect that. 

If you have 100% proof, then shouldn't the FBI have some as well? 

They do.  The whole world does.  The GOP does not see that as disqualifying.  :shrug:

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KCitons said:

Lying about how much you drank in high school and lying about sexually assaulting a classmate are two different things. (see explanation below)

It's the world we live in. I think we have an unreasonable expectation for our politicians. We can't even have an expectation for a priest to keep his hands to himself and he believes he answers to a divine power. Whether it's Kavanaugh, Trump, Obama, or you. I think everyone lies to protect their position. Especially when backed into a corner.

We've had two SC nominees go through a sexual harassment allegation during confirmation. Based on a general understanding of society over the past 50 years, do you think that non of the other SC Justices could be guilty of crossing a line when it comes to behavior that would be questioned? 

What we are left with, is making decisions based on what we know. We don't know the history of all other Justice's, so we assume the best of them. We may get more facts on Kavanaugh, which will allow me to make a more informed decision. As much as I think that he lied, I don't have any proof. If some becomes available, I will change my stance based on those findings. 

Supreme Court Justices are politicians?

I saw Kavanaugh do his best impression of one, but I don't think that's the role he's supposed to be playing.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Captain Cranks said:

Supreme Court Justices are politicians?

I saw Kavanaugh do his best impression of one, but I don't think that's the role he's supposed to be playing.  

They're not priests either. 

You ask for people to answer truthfully. I did. See what it gets you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, KCitons said:

If there is one thing we have learned this week is that victims are reluctant to come forward. Are you 100% confident that no other member of the SC hasn't stepped over a line at some point in their life? Keep in mind, I referenced the last 50 years. Times have changed, but they were much worse back then. 

There is at least a small chance that yes, one of them has stepped over a line. If someone was to come forward with credible accusations I would want an investigation. And if that investigation showed sexual misconduct, regardless. of the decade, I would want that justice removed. 

What is your point anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

There is at least a small chance that yes, one of them has stepped over a line. If someone was to come forward with credible accusations I would want an investigation. And if that investigation showed sexual misconduct, regardless. of the decade, I would want that justice removed. 

What is your point anyway?

The bolded is my point. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguing that it’s ok if an SC Justice lied under oath...I mean really.  How hard is it to just say that isn’t a good thing?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

And your point is that they should not be removed? I am not following

Show me where I posted that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Arguing that it’s ok if an SC Justice lied under oath...I mean really.  How hard is it to just say that isn’t a good thing?

If we have proof that the someone lied under oath, then he/she committed perjury and the laws will take over. At this point, do we have proof that someone lied under oath?

I'm sorry I forced you guys to pull your heads out of the sand. You're probably so angry at the state of this country because you assume everyone is telling you the truth. They are not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KCitons said:

Yes, No, No.

The pole is flawed.

Basically I expect every politician and sc justice to lie, have lied, or have skeletons in their closet. The degree of those transgressions would effect my answer to #2. 

 

1 minute ago, KCitons said:

If we have proof that the someone lied under oath, then he/she committed perjury and the laws will take over. At this point, do we have proof that someone lied under oath?

I'm sorry I forced you guys to pull your heads out of the sand. You're probably so angry at the state of this country because you assume everyone is telling you the truth. They are not. 

We aren’t talking about proof.  We are talking your words where you stated you expect them to lie.

And thisnoull our heads out of the sand and not being able to understand what others are saying is why this will be the last time I reply to you.  Just utter crap.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

 

We aren’t talking about proof.  We are talking your words where you stated you expect them to lie.

And thisnoull our heads out of the sand and not being able to understand what others are saying is why this will be the last time I reply to you.  Just utter crap.

 

Sho nuff wait....sorry you can't handle the truth. 

You guys should stop asking people for their opinions when you don't want to hear them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pole should be fixed. 

Question 1 and 2 should only have one choice. Yes. 

Question 3 should only have one choice. No. 

Everyone who participates gets a trophy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, KCitons said:

 

12 hours ago, sho nuff said:

 

We aren’t talking about proof.  We are talking your words where you stated you expect them to lie.

And thisnoull our heads out of the sand and not being able to understand what others are saying is why this will be the last time I reply to you.  Just utter crap.

 

Sho nuff wait....sorry you can't handle the truth. 

You guys should stop asking people for their opinions when you don't want to hear them.

 

So, to summarize your argument: "Yes, I believe he lied.  If we had proof he lied it's a criminal offense. If he purposely lied, it shouldn't stop him from being on the SC. You guys who think it should keep him off  the Court ignore the truth."  Is that it?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, KCitons said:

Sho nuff wait....sorry you can't handle the truth. 

You guys should stop asking people for their opinions when you don't want to hear them.

You're entitled to any opinion you want, but when it's fraught with mental gymnastics (It's not that big a deal that a nominee commits perjury during his interview for one of the highest and ethically demanding positions in our country?) and untruths (SC Justices are politicians and we should just expect them to lie?) then expect to be called out on them.     

Edited by Captain Cranks
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Apple Jack said:

Being casual with the truth under oath is not something a SC judge can do. It's not that difficult to understand.

It's not something any judge can do.

How can a judge preside over trials where testimony is paramount and the concept of telling the truth under oath is sacred, and not do the same himself?

It undermines the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, apalmer said:

So, to summarize your argument: "Yes, I believe he lied.  If we had proof he lied it's a criminal offense. If he purposely lied, it shouldn't stop him from being on the SC. You guys who think it should keep him off  the Court ignore the truth."  Is that it?

Yep. I believe he (and everyone else that interviews for a job) to lie during the interview process. The extent of those lies is what determines whether or not I would still approve him for seat on the SC. These are my statements. 

Quote

Basically I expect every politician and sc justice to lie, have lied, or have skeletons in their closet. The degree of those transgressions would effect my answer to #2.

Quote

Lying about how much you drank in high school and lying about sexually assaulting a classmate are two different things.

 

The real question is, why do care so much about my opinion? I don't approve SC justices, so what difference does it make? I've been honest about my opinion of politicians, public figures, and people in general. They all lie when they have something at stake. I don't expect that to change with someone that holds the title of SC Justice, POTUS, Archbishop, or anything else. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Captain Cranks said:

You're entitled to any opinion you want, but when it's fraught with mental gymnastics (It's not that big a deal that a nominee commits perjury during his interview for one of the highest and ethically demanding positions in our country?) and untruths (SC Justices are politicians and we should just expect them to lie?) then expect to be called out on them.     

When you ask for people to be truthful, then expect to have answers you may not agree with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

They all lie when they have something at stake. I don't expect that to change with someone that holds the title of SC Justice, POTUS, Archbishop, or anything else. 

His lies were intended to shut down questions about his sexual activity as a teen and in college, as well as shut down questions about behavior that may have occurred after he had too many drinks.

So he lies about all things related to drinking too much, and sexually-charged interests he expressed as a teen.

All while testifying in response to allegations of sexually related things he was accused of doing after drinking too much.

And these lies don't matter to you?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Yep. I believe he (and everyone else that interviews for a job) to lie during the interview process. The extent of those lies is what determines whether or not I would still approve him for seat on the SC. These are my statements. 

 

The real question is, why do care so much about my opinion? I don't approve SC justices, so what difference does it make? I've been honest about my opinion of politicians, public figures, and people in general. They all lie when they have something at stake. I don't expect that to change with someone that holds the title of SC Justice, POTUS, Archbishop, or anything else. 

 

There was one person that didn't feel the need to lie on Thursday.  I wonder why.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KCitons said:

When you ask for people to be truthful, then expect to have answers you may not agree with. 

I'm not expecting you to have a certain opinion.  We're just pointing out the flaws in your opinion.  If you don't like that then you shouldn't have put your opinion out there to be critiqued.  

It's like the 'should we teach creationism or evolution in schools' argument.  If you want creationism to be taught in schools in a scientific capacity, you need to do a lot better than, "it's just what I believe."   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, adonis said:

His lies were intended to shut down questions about his sexual activity as a teen and in college, as well as shut down questions about behavior that may have occurred after he had too many drinks.

So he lies about all things related to drinking too much, and sexually-charged interests he expressed as a teen.

All while testifying in response to allegations of sexually related things he was accused of doing after drinking too much.

And these lies don't matter to you?  

Facts matter. He also said he was not a gang rapist. If facts prove the he was, then he should be removed and prosecuted as such. If he said he never drank in high school and the facts show that he did, then I don't really care.

Are you looking for any reason possible to keep him from getting confirmed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Captain Cranks said:

There was one person that didn't feel the need to lie on Thursday.  I wonder why.  

Who? 

Proof?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Facts matter. He also said he was not a gang rapist. If facts prove the he was, then he should be removed and prosecuted as such. If he said he never drank in high school and the facts show that he did, then I don't really care.

Are you looking for any reason possible to keep him from getting confirmed? 

No.  

Major questions came up around his behavior towards women when he was drunk.  Sexually related questions.

This means his attitude and actions surrounding alcohol usage and his views on sex at this age are incredibly relevant in evaluating the legitimacy of claims during this time.

He clearly lied about his views relating to sex (Devils triangle, boofing, etc) as well as being incredibly defensive and lying about his drinking habits at the time.

Why?

On top of that, he became incredibly defensive and partisan in his attacks against what he calls an unfair process.  He singled out democrats, pointed to conspiracies about all of this, and then proceeded to LIE on issues related to these questions.

There are many other judges out there who wouldn't have to do this.  Who don't have a history of drinking like Kavanaugh has.  Who wouldn't resort to partisan conspiracy theories angrily presented while undergoing a job interview for a lifetime appointment on the SC.

Are you looking to ignore any bad behavior by Kavanaugh to get him on the SC?

Why Kavanaugh?  I don't give a damn about him.  All I want is our SC to be filled with the most ethical, brightest, and fair-minded judges our country can offer.  It's clear after this latest round of testimony that Kavanaugh isn't in that echelon.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Captain Cranks said:

I'm not expecting you to have a certain opinion.  We're just pointing out the flaws in your opinion.  If you don't like that then you shouldn't have put your opinion out there to be critiqued.  

It's like the 'should we teach creationism or evolution in schools' argument.  If you want creationism to be taught in schools in a scientific capacity, you need to do a lot better than, "it's just what I believe."   

This is different than your example. I don't have any bearing over whether or not Kavanaugh gets approved. You see it as a black and white issue, I see it as shades of grey. I've also pointed out flaws in your opinion. Just because you aren't aware of issues with other SC justices, doesn't mean they don't exist. But, if it gives you a false sense of security that they made it through nomination hearings without lying, then that's ok. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Facts matter. He also said he was not a gang rapist. If facts prove the he was, then he should be removed and prosecuted as such. If he said he never drank in high school and the facts show that he did, then I don't really care.

If he is willing to lie about something as innocuous as drinking, doesn't it at least give you some pause that he may be lying about other stuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, adonis said:

No.  

Major questions came up around his behavior towards women when he was drunk.  Sexually related questions.

This means his attitude and actions surrounding alcohol usage and his views on sex at this age are incredibly relevant in evaluating the legitimacy of claims during this time.

He clearly lied about his views relating to sex (Devils triangle, boofing, etc) as well as being incredibly defensive and lying about his drinking habits at the time.

Why?

On top of that, he became incredibly defensive and partisan in his attacks against what he calls an unfair process.  He singled out democrats, pointed to conspiracies about all of this, and then proceeded to LIE on issues related to these questions.

There are many other judges out there who wouldn't have to do this.  Who don't have a history of drinking like Kavanaugh has.  Who wouldn't resort to partisan conspiracy theories angrily presented while undergoing a job interview for a lifetime appointment on the SC.

Are you looking to ignore any bad behavior by Kavanaugh to get him on the SC?

Why Kavanaugh?  I don't give a damn about him.  All I want is our SC to be filled with the most ethical, brightest, and fair-minded judges our country can offer.  It's clear after this latest round of testimony that Kavanaugh isn't in that echelon.  

I could care less if he gets approved. We just see this process being played out differently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.