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

Just now, KCitons said:

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

Was there concerted democratic action taken to oppose his candidacy? I imagine so.  Was it unfair? Probably.  Is he being unfairly accused at least in some cases?  Probably so.

That still doesn't explain why he lied about certain things related to sex and alcohol.  There's just absolutely no need for that.  And he did it under oath, while folks were probing trying to get to the bottom of allegations related to both things.

His lies on these topics are all one needs to not support him being nominated.  Additional evidence is his temperament, and his frankly partisan attacks on those who are vetting him for a lifetime appointment on the SC.  He failed both the requirement of being truthful in his testimony, and in showing the country that he can be a non-partisan judge.

Again...I don't care about Kavanaugh.  Gorsuch glided to his nomination despite the circumstances being incredibly underhanded getting him that spot.  There are others out there qualified who won't resort to partisan rants and lying under oath to get on the court.  It's really that simple.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

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?

Sure. I don't doubt that he would lie about sexually assaulting Ford. 

All this leaves us with is the investigation and facts. It's easier (and safer) to believe no one. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try another analogy. (people love it when I do that.)

Let's say you're starving. and you need to buy food. The only food for sale is a barrel of apples. Each apple has some degree of damage, rot, and/or worms. You can dig through the entire barrel, but every apple is basically the same. The best you can hope for is to pick one that doesn't produce a worm once you've taken a bite. But none of them are perfect. 

This is how I feel about the people that represent us. You can dig through the barrel all you want, your still left with a rotten apple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He knew he couldn’t tell the truth about drinking til he blacked out or didn’t remember what happened because he knew the next question is how do you know what happened the night in question with these women.

He lied there IMO with how much he obsessed about beer.

He misled repeatedly when he said that Ford’s best friend refuted Ford’s story - she didn’t.

He lied about his yearbook IMO.

His temperament was shockingly bad when he was pressed about drinking.

He openly acknowledged that he is highly political and vindictive. 

There has to be a better choice.

Edited by The General
  • Like 4

Share this post


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

He knew he couldn’t tell the truth about drinking til he blacked out or didn’t remember what happened because he next question is how do you know what happened the night in question with these women.

He lied there IMO with how much he obsessed about beer.

He misled when repeatedly when he said that Ford’s best friend refuted Ford’s story - she didn’t.

He lies about his yearbook IMO

His temperament was shockingly bad when he was pressed about drinking.

He openly acknowledged that he is highly political and vindictive. 

There has to be a better choice.

Didnt her friend make a recent statement that she believes the accusation?

Share this post


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

He knew he couldn’t tell the truth about drinking til he blacked out or didn’t remember what happened because he next question is how do you know what happened the night in question with these women.

He lied there IMO with how much he obsessed about beer.

He misled when repeatedly when he said that Ford’s best friend refuted Ford’s story - she didn’t.

He lies about his yearbook IMO

His temperament was shockingly bad when he was pressed about drinking.

He openly acknowledged that he is highly political and vindictive. 

There has to be a better choice.

Spot on

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, JIslander said:

Didnt her friend make a recent statement that she believes the accusation?

I believe she said she can’t say for sure but she believes and supports her friend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JIslander said:

Yup. Let's add disrespect to Committee members. That Klobuchar exchange was disgusting.

That was crazy. I’m not good at knowing tells but that he acted so crazy there when she was asking easy questions in a non-threatening way seemed pretty obvious.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lying and lying under oath have been two different things.  If a potential SCJ doesn’t understand the difference, they are unfit for service.  Really not more complicated than that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Lying and lying under oath have been two different things.  If a potential SCJ doesn’t understand the difference, they are unfit for service.  Really not more complicated than that.

Right. Lying is okay. Lying under oath is wrong.

Why is lying okay at all? If you find any lying to be acceptable, then you are already halfway to accepting lying under oath. 

I'm sure there will be responses about lying to your kids about Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. But, that benefits the person that is being lied to. In any instance where lying protects the person telling the lie, it's wrong. Oath or not. 

But, we've moved way past right and wrong a long time ago. 

Share this post


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

Right. Lying is okay. Lying under oath is wrong.

Why is lying okay at all? If you find any lying to be acceptable, then you are already halfway to accepting lying under oath. 

I'm sure there will be responses about lying to your kids about Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. But, that benefits the person that is being lied to. In any instance where lying protects the person telling the lie, it's wrong. Oath or not. 

But, we've moved way past right and wrong a long time ago. 

But this is a judge, who oversees cases that hinge on the premise that testimony given under oath is true, under penalty of law.

Every single person explaining away his lies is doing exactly what democrats did to explain away Bill Cilnton's lies under oath about Lewinsky.  

Oddly enough, Kavanaugh is a common denominator between both situations.

Share this post


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

But this is a judge, who oversees cases that hinge on the premise that testimony given under oath is true, under penalty of law.

Every single person explaining away his lies is doing exactly what democrats did to explain away Bill Cilnton's lies under oath about Lewinsky.  

Oddly enough, Kavanaugh is a common denominator between both situations.

I'm not explaining away Kavanaugh's lies. I'm just saying he's no different than the rest of the population, even though he's a judge. I think it's naive on your part to think that everyone is as pure as Mother Teresa. 

What did people think of Bill Cosby a couple of decades ago? What about teachers or priests that are being accused of sexual assault on a seemingly daily basis? Is there a higher expectation and trust with them?

In the end, I'm just playing the odds. 

 

Share this post


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

I'm not explaining away Kavanaugh's lies. I'm just saying he's no different than the rest of the population, even though he's a judge. I think it's naive on your part to think that everyone is as pure as Mother Teresa. 

What did people think of Bill Cosby a couple of decades ago? What about teachers or priests that are being accused of sexual assault on a seemingly daily basis? Is there a higher expectation and trust with them?

In the end, I'm just playing the odds. 

 

Like in poker, the odds of knowing someone’s hand accurately increases the more cards they show.  

Kavanaugh showed many of his cards.  Several were disqualifying.

There are people who exist who have higher standards than him, whose cards once revealed won’t be as bad.  Why not gamble on them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, adonis said:

Like in poker, the odds of knowing someone’s hand accurately increases the more cards they show.  

Kavanaugh showed many of his cards.  Several were disqualifying.

There are people who exist who have higher standards than him, whose cards once revealed won’t be as bad.  Why not gamble on them?

What was your opinion on Kavanaugh two months ago? How do you know the others have higher standards?

How do you know that one of those other people don't have an accuser waiting to come forward? And don't say that is not a good reason to approve Kavanaugh. I'm not saying that. I'm still waiting for FBI facts, instead of relying on his tone or rant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

What was your opinion on Kavanaugh two months ago? How do you know the others have higher standards?

How do you know that one of those other people don't have an accuser waiting to come forward? And don't say that is not a good reason to approve Kavanaugh. I'm not saying that. I'm still waiting for FBI facts, instead of relying on his tone or rant. 

I didn't have an opinion of him two months ago.

I know others have higher standards because not all of our best judges in this country are willing to lie under oath to get a spot on the supreme court.  Some would be, i'm sure.  But those folks don't deserve to sit on the nation's highest court.

Ask yourself why Gorsuch had an easy go of it and Kavanaugh is having a hard time. 

I've hired quite a few people in my day, done interviews, and if anyone had performed in an interview for a job like Kavanaugh performed, with lies, dissembling, and outright disdain for questioners, there's absolutely no way he would've been selected.  We often have several options who have the credentials necessary to do the job and in the end many times it comes down to personality, will they be a fit, do they share our company vision?  In a case like this, Kavanaugh showed himself not to be a match for what I'm looking for in a SC justice.  In fact, I think in the process, he's shown himself unfit to be a judge in any office.  Lying under oath is a BIG DEAL.

Share this post


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

What was your opinion on Kavanaugh two months ago? How do you know the others have higher standards?

How do you know that one of those other people don't have an accuser waiting to come forward? And don't say that is not a good reason to approve Kavanaugh. I'm not saying that. I'm still waiting for FBI facts, instead of relying on his tone or rant. 

Do you believe his story about his yearbook quotes or his drinking history?

Share this post


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

I didn't have an opinion of him two months ago.

I know others have higher standards because not all of our best judges in this country are willing to lie under oath to get a spot on the supreme court.  Some would be, i'm sure.  But those folks don't deserve to sit on the nation's highest court.

Ask yourself why Gorsuch had an easy go of it and Kavanaugh is having a hard time. 

I've hired quite a few people in my day, done interviews, and if anyone had performed in an interview for a job like Kavanaugh performed, with lies, dissembling, and outright disdain for questioners, there's absolutely no way he would've been selected.  We often have several options who have the credentials necessary to do the job and in the end many times it comes down to personality, will they be a fit, do they share our company vision?  In a case like this, Kavanaugh showed himself not to be a match for what I'm looking for in a SC justice.  In fact, I think in the process, he's shown himself unfit to be a judge in any office.  Lying under oath is a BIG DEAL.

This is your right as a citizen to have this opinion. 

You may have the same opinion of any new candidate after they go through a hearing. I get what you're saying though. The unknown is better than the known at this point. I can respect your opinion. 

Share this post


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

This is your right as a citizen to have this opinion. 

You may have the same opinion of any new candidate after they go through a hearing. I get what you're saying though. The unknown is better than the known at this point. I can respect your opinion. 

And I appreciate you engaging in a reasonable discussion. 

I just don't understand how folks can dismiss a Laywer and Judge lying under oath to get on the Supreme Court, specifically in an attempt to avoid questions about a possible history of sexual assault and heavy drinking.  

You do agree that he lied under oath about those things to avoid questions that would take the interviews further down that road right?

Share this post


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

Do you believe his story about his yearbook quotes or his drinking history?

I have no choice but to believe what he says. If facts show otherwise then I will adjust that belief. 

I would also think that he knows exactly how to walk a line when it comes to making statements under oath. At this point, he may be lying to become the next SC justice. But, if he lies and is caught, he will lose the seat as well as any ability to practice law. 

Share this post


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

And I appreciate you engaging in a reasonable discussion. 

I just don't understand how folks can dismiss a Laywer and Judge lying under oath to get on the Supreme Court, specifically in an attempt to avoid questions about a possible history of sexual assault and heavy drinking.  

You do agree that he lied under oath about those things to avoid questions that would take the interviews further down that road right?

I don't have facts that prove this. I'm applying my general belief in society to this situation. Odds are, he lied. Odds are he did so thinking that it was going to be very difficult to prove he was lying. (probably never expected an FBI investigation). Or if he told the truth, he was going to lose the nomination. At this point he took a calculated risk and put the burden of proof on others. 

I don't know protocol here. But, isn't this the equivalent of pleading the 5th? 

Share this post


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

I have no choice but to believe what he says. If facts show otherwise then I will adjust that belief. 

 

:confused:

You keep telling us that everyone lies. Shouldn't your premise start with the complete opposite of what you wrote?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I don't have facts that prove this. I'm applying my general belief in society to this situation. Odds are, he lied. Odds are he did so thinking that it was going to be very difficult to prove he was lying. (probably never expected an FBI investigation). Or if he told the truth, he was going to lose the nomination. At this point he took a calculated risk and put the burden of proof on others. 

I don't know protocol here. But, isn't this the equivalent of pleading the 5th? 

I'm pretty sure lying under oath to avoid uncomfortable personal questions isn't the same as pleading the 5th.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I have no choice but to believe what he says. If facts show otherwise then I will adjust that belief. 

I would also think that he knows exactly how to walk a line when it comes to making statements under oath. At this point, he may be lying to become the next SC justice. But, if he lies and is caught, he will lose the seat as well as any ability to practice law. 

I guess we’ll see if he’s lying. Seems pretty obvious.

Agreed he knows how to walk a legal line, he’s obviously highly intellegent. He knows what the definition of “refute” is. He misled multiple times using that word regarding Ford and her friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, adonis said:

I'm pretty sure lying under oath to avoid uncomfortable personal questions isn't the same as pleading the 5th.

Self preservation. 

Share this post


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

I'm pretty sure lying under oath to avoid uncomfortable personal questions isn't the same as pleading the 5th.

Self preservation. 

He's not on trial.

He's interviewing for a job.  

Share this post


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

:confused:

You keep telling us that everyone lies. Shouldn't your premise start with the complete opposite of what you wrote?

I already said that I believe the odds are he lied. That was admitted in my first post. What he lied about? I don't know. Hopefully we find out. 

My premise is based on bad apples. Some people would like to trade the one we have now for hopes at a better one. I believe they all have worms. 

Share this post


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

He's not on trial.

He's interviewing for a job.  

What percentage of people lie on their resume? 

Share this post


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

He's not on trial.

He's interviewing for a job.  

What percentage of people lie on their resume? 

He lied under oath.  That's a crime.

What percentage of people commit crimes while trying to get a job?  Should those people end up getting the job if the employer knows they committed a crime in order to get hired?

Edited by adonis
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

He lied under oath.  That's a crime.

What percentage of people commit crimes while trying to get a job?  Should those people end up getting the job if the employer knows they committed a crime in order to get hired?

If there's proof then he will be charged and we don't have to worry about it. If there is no proof then how can you say for sure that he lied?

This is why I said he is walking a fine line and thought he knew what could or could not be proved in the scope of the hearing. Now that there is an FBI investigation, I would assume he's not sleeping very well. 

The last sentence is just chicken and egg. We don't know if a crime has been committed. Our assumptions and beliefs don't matter.

Share this post


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

If there's proof then he will be charged and we don't have to worry about it. If there is no proof then how can you say for sure that he lied?

This is why I said he is walking a fine line and thought he knew what could or could not be proved in the scope of the hearing. Now that there is an FBI investigation, I would assume he's not sleeping very well. 

The last sentence is just chicken and egg. We don't know if a crime has been committed. Our assumptions and beliefs don't matter.

You know he lied about the definitions of "devils triangle", "boofing", and his relationship with alcohol while in school.  He literally had on his yearbook page listed "100 kegs or bust".  People who drink in moderation simply do not do that. His explanations about other things from his past don't pass muster either.

He's clearly lied about some things (definitions of words with sexual meanings).  His credibility is seriously questioned when he suggests he didn't drink a lot ("100 kegs or bust", his explanation about his weak stomach, his best friend's public comments about parties, the people he hung around in fraternities, the comments of other contemporaries who drank with him...)

He lied provably in some situations, and we have heavy reason to doubt his honesty in others.  All around issues of sex and heavy drinking, which COINCIDENTALLY are central to all allegations of sexual assault against him.

If I knew for sure someone applying for a job had lied about something central to a major point of concern I had about them, I wouldn't hire them.  For a temporary job.  That affects only a limited number of people, for a limited time, in a limited locale.

How much more discerning and selective should we be in choosing someone who sits with a lifetime appointment to a court that makes decisions that will affect all americans for generations?  And you seriously want to just sweep under the rug his behavior and lies this past week?  

If he can't be trusted to tell the truth about small things that make him look bad (drinking, sexual comments in yearbook), why should we believe him about the big things that make him look bad (sexual assault allegations)?

Edited by adonis

Share this post


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

You know he lied about the definitions of "devils triangle", "boofing", and his relationship with alcohol while in school.  He literally had on his yearbook page listed "100 kegs or bust".  People who drink in moderation simply do not do that. His explanations about other things from his past don't pass muster either.

He's clearly lied about some things (definitions of words with sexual meanings).  His credibility is seriously questioned when he suggests he didn't drink a lot ("100 kegs or bust", his explanation about his weak stomach, his best friend's public comments about parties, the people he hung around in fraternities, the comments of other contemporaries who drank with him...)

He lied provably in some situations, and we have heavy reason to doubt his honesty in others.  All around issues of sex and heavy drinking, which COINCIDENTALLY are central to all allegations of sexual assault against him.

If I knew for sure someone applying for a job had lied about something central to a major point of concern I had about them, I wouldn't hire them.  For a temporary job.  That affects only a limited number of people, for a limited time, in a limited locale.

How much more discerning and selective should we be in choosing someone who sits with a lifetime appointment to a court that makes decisions that will affect all americans for generations?  And you seriously want to just sweep under the rug his behavior and lies this past week?  

If he can't be trusted to tell the truth about small things that make him look bad (drinking, sexual comments in yearbook), why should we believe him about the big things that make him look bad (sexual assault allegations)?

When you were 16, or 18, or 22 did you ever over exaggerate? How many teenage boys lied to their friends about having sex when they never even kissed a girl. Build a case around proof and prosecute him for perjury.  The rest is conjecture.

You can make the argument that he may not be suitable for this position because we require more from a SC justice. But we are also a country of laws and require due process before imposing punishment. You seem to want to skip that part. 

As an HR person, how much weight do you give a persons history from 36 years ago? If I lied to you about my first job at Wendy's in 1986, would you have enough facts to make an informed decision? Would you just err on the side of caution and disqualify me as a candidate? Even though none of my recent history shows any behavior to back up your evaluation?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

When you were 16, or 18, or 22 did you ever over exaggerate? How many teenage boys lied to their friends about having sex when they never even kissed a girl. Build a case around proof and prosecute him for perjury.  The rest is conjecture.

You can make the argument that he may not be suitable for this position because we require more from a SC justice. But we are also a country of laws and require due process before imposing punishment. You seem to want to skip that part. 

As an HR person, how much weight do you give a persons history from 36 years ago? If I lied to you about my first job at Wendy's in 1986, would you have enough facts to make an informed decision? Would you just err on the side of caution and disqualify me as a candidate? Even though none of my recent history shows any behavior to back up your evaluation?

Not an HR person, but if a person is lying to me today to avoid questions into his past, even from 36 years ago, especially about heavy drinking and sexual assault, and I had other qualified candidates to choose from, I'd look elsewhere.

If I was certain he committed a crime while trying to get the job I was offering, I'd certainly not hire him.

Judge Kavanaugh clearly knows the definitions of devils triangle and "boof" isn't what he said they were.  He lied.  Under oath.  

So tell me...why is it not disqualifying for a guy to commit a crime while pursuing a job?  Because clearly that's what Kavanaugh did.

Share this post


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

Not an HR person, but if a person is lying to me today to avoid questions into his past, even from 36 years ago, especially about heavy drinking and sexual assault, and I had other qualified candidates to choose from, I'd look elsewhere.

If I was certain he committed a crime while trying to get the job I was offering, I'd certainly not hire him.

Judge Kavanaugh clearly knows the definitions of devils triangle and "boof" isn't what he said they were.  He lied.  Under oath.  

So tell me...why is it not disqualifying for a guy to commit a crime while pursuing a job?  Because clearly that's what Kavanaugh did.

Did you drink in high school or college before you were 21? You committed a crime. You should ask everyone you interview if they drank before 21. 

Did he lie about sexual assault? You're making a connection between lying about drinking and committing sexual assault. While it is a factor, they are not mutually exclusive. 

Share this post


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

Did you drink in high school or college before you were 21? You committed a crime. You should ask everyone you interview if they drank before 21. 

Did he lie about sexual assault? You're making a connection between lying about drinking and committing sexual assault. While it is a factor, they are not mutually exclusive. 

He committed a crime, this past week, at 53 years old, while pursuing one of the highest offices in the land.  

He did this in order to end a line of questioning into his past regarding sex and heavy drinking.

He committed a crime, in order to protect himself, so that he could get on the supreme court.  And this bothers you not in the least.  That's odd.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

He committed a crime, this past week, at 53 years old, while pursuing one of the highest offices in the land.  

He did this in order to end a line of questioning into his past regarding sex and heavy drinking.

He committed a crime, in order to protect himself, so that he could get on the supreme court.  And this bothers you not in the least.  That's odd.

You didn't answer my question. Yet, I've answered yours over and over. It's not a matter of whether or not it bothers me. It's based on the information available and how I interpret that information. I'm not the only person in this country that feels this way. 

If you were him, how would you have answered the questions? Yes, I was a heavy drinker in high school. Yes, I wrote those things in the yearbook, but I was just boasting (as teenage boys tend to do). Would this have helped or hurt his confirmation? Again, it's his way of taking the lesser of two evils.

 

Share this post


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

You didn't answer my question. Yet, I've answered yours over and over. It's not a matter of whether or not it bothers me. It's based on the information available and how I interpret that information. I'm not the only person in this country that feels this way. 

If you were him, how would you have answered the questions? Yes, I was a heavy drinker in high school. Yes, I wrote those things in the yearbook, but I was just boasting (as teenage boys tend to do). Would this have helped or hurt his confirmation? Again, it's his way of taking the lesser of two evils.

I drank in high school before I was 21.  I wasn't a heavy drinker.  I didn't sexually assault women.  I didn't have enough of a relationship with alcohol to joke about 100 kegs or bust, or make references to sexual acts in high school pages, nor did any of my friends.  I didn't run with that group.

Again, whether I was wrong for drinking before 21 is not relevant to whether Kavanaugh should get an appointment to the supreme court.  I have never lied under oath.  If I had to lie in order to be eligible for such a position, I wouldn't be deserving of that position.

I understand fully well WHY he lied.  I understand fully well why most folks under oath lie and perjure themselves.  It's because it's in their best interests, so they think.  It's because they don't want certain incriminating information to come out.  But guess what.  Our entire system of law and justice is built on the idea that if you're under oath, you tell the truth, or you pay a penalty.  He's a judge, he's in charge of overseeing this system, yet he abused it himself this week in attempting to gain an even HIGHER position as a justice.

 

Share this post


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

Right. Lying is okay. Lying under oath is wrong.

Why is lying okay at all? If you find any lying to be acceptable, then you are already halfway to accepting lying under oath. 

I'm sure there will be responses about lying to your kids about Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. But, that benefits the person that is being lied to. In any instance where lying protects the person telling the lie, it's wrong. Oath or not. 

But, we've moved way past right and wrong a long time ago. 

For me it has to do with how the law looks at when you lie, nothing more.

Share this post


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

I drank in high school before I was 21.  I wasn't a heavy drinker.  I didn't sexually assault women.  I didn't have enough of a relationship with alcohol to joke about 100 kegs or bust, or make references to sexual acts in high school pages, nor did any of my friends.  I didn't run with that group.

Again, whether I was wrong for drinking before 21 is not relevant to whether Kavanaugh should get an appointment to the supreme court.  I have never lied under oath.  If I had to lie in order to be eligible for such a position, I wouldn't be deserving of that position.

I understand fully well WHY he lied.  I understand fully well why most folks under oath lie and perjure themselves.  It's because it's in their best interests, so they think.  It's because they don't want certain incriminating information to come out.  But guess what.  Our entire system of law and justice is built on the idea that if you're under oath, you tell the truth, or you pay a penalty.  He's a judge, he's in charge of overseeing this system, yet he abused it himself this week in attempting to gain an even HIGHER position as a justice.

 

Which is why I'm allowing the process to take care of this. I don't have to stomp my feet and demand anything. If there is proof that he lied, then he's done. 

I started a thread awhile back asking if posters here would be able to run for office due to past transgressions. Most couldn't. While I don't think anyone that commits sexual assault should be allowed to sit on the highest court in the country, I also think that you seriously dilute the pool of people that want to, are able to, and can be approved to  fill that position. This country is screwed up for a reason. Those reasons are filling positions of office, clergy, education, and the Supreme Court. We should probably start raising justices in an environment like the movie Truman.

Share this post


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

For me it has to do with how the law looks at when you lie, nothing more.

Can you explain this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

Which is why I'm allowing the process to take care of this. I don't have to stomp my feet and demand anything. If there is proof that he lied, then he's done. 

I started a thread awhile back asking if posters here would be able to run for office due to past transgressions. Most couldn't. While I don't think anyone that commits sexual assault should be allowed to sit on the highest court in the country, I also think that you seriously dilute the pool of people that want to, are able to, and can be approved to  fill that position. This country is screwed up for a reason. Those reasons are filling positions of office, clergy, education, and the Supreme Court. We should probably start raising justices in an environment like the movie Truman.

The bar isn't that high.  We're not expecting perfection, just honesty and putting folks on the supreme court who are the highest quality individuals.

Being willing to lie under oath to get there excludes Kavanaugh from that group.  Anyone willing to lie under oath to become a Supreme Court justice doesn't deserve to sit on the court.  That goes for any currently serving there, who have served in the past, or who could serve in the future.

Share this post


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

I drank in high school before I was 21.  I wasn't a heavy drinker.  I didn't sexually assault women.  I didn't have enough of a relationship with alcohol to joke about 100 kegs or bust, or make references to sexual acts in high school pages, nor did any of my friends.  I didn't run with that group.

Again, whether I was wrong for drinking before 21 is not relevant to whether Kavanaugh should get an appointment to the supreme court.  I have never lied under oath.  If I had to lie in order to be eligible for such a position, I wouldn't be deserving of that position.

I understand fully well WHY he lied.  I understand fully well why most folks under oath lie and perjure themselves.  It's because it's in their best interests, so they think.  It's because they don't want certain incriminating information to come out.  But guess what.  Our entire system of law and justice is built on the idea that if you're under oath, you tell the truth, or you pay a penalty.  He's a judge, he's in charge of overseeing this system, yet he abused it himself this week in attempting to gain an even HIGHER position as a justice.

 

Also, I can relate to this. At my previous position I was responsible for background checks. These ranged in positions from CEO to part time cashier. I felt that Loss Prevention Agents should be held to a higher standard. I was shot down because we needed to be consistent in our hiring practices. Everyone was pass/fail based on predefined criteria. 

Everyone should be expected to tell the truth when under oath. Everyone should be expected to tell the truth all the time. Somehow we moved away from this over time. 

Share this post


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

The bar isn't that high.  We're not expecting perfection, just honesty and putting folks on the supreme court who are the highest quality individuals.

Being willing to lie under oath to get there excludes Kavanaugh from that group.  Anyone willing to lie under oath to become a Supreme Court justice doesn't deserve to sit on the court.  That goes for any currently serving there, who have served in the past, or who could serve in the future.

Perhaps we need to change the process? Ask nominees a series of 100 questions that date back 40 years. Some the FBI knows the answer to, some they don't. If the candidate is honest to all known answers there's a vote to approve. If they lie on one, they're prosecuted. 

Share this post


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

Sure, when you lie under oath, you can be charged with a crime.  

Thank you. It's not up to me to determine if he can be charged with a crime. If the FBI finds proof of lying will he be charged?

Share this post


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

Thank you. It's not up to me to determine if he can be charged with a crime. If the FBI finds proof of lying will he be charged?

I have no idea, I hope so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kids do dumb stuff. For me, this isn't really about the dumb stuff anyone did when they were kids. It's about trusting an applicant that will adjudicate over THE most important issues that our nation faces. It's not about appointing a perfect person. Every one of us has committed crimes and done things we shouldn't have. For me, this is about integrity and honesty. And this grown man -- not a 17-year-old drunk, horny virgin -- a grown man with years on the bench sat in front of us and lied to us.

He lied. Undeniably.

And we are going to trust him to be honest and fair with the very course of our nation.

Edited by Ignoramus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. He isn't fit. Clearly. Nominate someone else. There must be other choices that favor executive power like Kav does. And that is what this nomination and the stubborn and persistent defense is all about. 

  • Like 1

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.