Brett Kavanaugh - Interest & Discussion - Page 311 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

Brett Kavanaugh - Interest & Discussion

...

Page 311 of 355

First

111 211 261 291 301 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 321 331

Last

Page 311 of 355

First

111 211 261 291 301 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 321 331

Last

10-06-2018 , 01:39 AM

#7751

businessdude

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 10,913

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Truant

Let's go with the old Suzzer gotcha here. Would you hire a babysitter to take care of your kids if they had a credible, but unprovable allegation against them of attempting sexual assault on a minor?

This would be a case of immediate danger to your kids - I really don't think even people against BK believe he's an immediate threat today to rape people. It get's more to what I asked in a previous post here - how much weight do you give to teenage behavior ( and 35 year old teenage behavior) even if they are totally true? I.e. what if BK beat somebody up at 17, and it was known with 100% certainty - does that disqualify him AND would you think he was a threat to beat people up today?

10-06-2018 , 01:39 AM

#7752

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkStarMagnolia

I see what your doing. But your leaving out the important fact that prior to his nomination he had absolutely zero history of any sexual assault or allegations.

So to get back to your example, if I hired a babysitter. Completed my normal background check and nothing pops up, I would see no reason why not to hire. Let's try to rememeber how everything actually happened. Brett was almost completed with the interview process(unsure of the proper term) than the alleged accusation appeared

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkStarMagnolia

There's much more of a *****potential****** motive for someone falsely accusing a SCOTUS nominee.

That's why we have hearings where the majority of the country decided Dr. Ford's testimiony was pretty credible and even Republican senators will not say her accusations are false

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkStarMagnolia

I’m to tired to argue about this more but one variable I can throw in is that neighbor has a hidden agenda. One example, neighbor husband cheated on her , potential babysitter is daughter of said husband.

Hiring a possible rapist to babysit your kid because maybe the neighbor just has a hidden agenda, lmao

10-06-2018 , 01:44 AM

#7753

OmgGlutten!

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 5,273

Real life: Go on a job interview, don't get it because of some trivia detail

Fantasy World: Go on a job interview for the most prestigious job in the world that comes with a lifetime appointment, make a complete fool of yourself and break numerous rules and laws which should disqualify you from the position and still get hired by deplorables.

Democracy!

10-06-2018 , 01:48 AM

#7754

DarkStarMagnolia

newbie

Join Date: Jun 2017 Posts: 47

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

So, uh, in the babysitter hypothetical, can you talk about the point in the process where you discover your babysitter has a 20% chance of being a rapist and you decide to stick with that babysitter? Because I'm pretty sure that's the relevant part.

That's why we have hearings where the majority of the country decided Dr. Ford's testimiony was pretty credible and even Republican senators will not say her accusations are false

Hiring a possible rapist to babysit your kid because maybe the neighbor just has a hidden agenda, lmao

I never said I would hire... lol You literally left out the most important part where I said i wouldn't "use her services " lmao your wild man! Whoops I assumed your gender.

EDIT: jeez poker players and your damn prob % questions . As someone mention above in this scenario your question is difficult to answer . You either believe a person or not. No 5%, 10%, 65.3456% "chance"

If i think something like this is true I will NOT USE their services, tell them of the alleged allegation, than properly handle the situation.

Last edited by DarkStarMagnolia; 10-06-2018 at 01:59 AM.

10-06-2018 , 01:52 AM

#7755

iamnotawerewolf

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 31,482

[deleted, Politics trolls doing their thing.]

10-06-2018 , 01:55 AM

#7756

corvette24

banned

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,020

One more large issue to tackle: real tax reform. The standard deduction should be significantly higher - somewhere around 30k. Add a new 45% bracket on income above $500k, and we have a true wherewithal to pay tax system that allows everyone to pay for basic necessities before paying one cent in income tax.

10-06-2018 , 01:56 AM

#7757

gregorio

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 39,505

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkStarMagnolia

This is actually a good point. If I'd already hired a babysitter and then as my wife and I were on the way out the door we learned the babysitter was a registered sex offender, it's kind of too late to change your mind. It really wouldn't be fair to the babysitter at all.

10-06-2018 , 02:04 AM

#7758

DarkStarMagnolia

newbie

Join Date: Jun 2017 Posts: 47

EDIT: Your analogy is complete horse **** because I clearly said that "if I hired a babysitter. Completed my normal background check and nothing pops up, I would see no reason why not to hire."

Your smartass scenario is impossible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregorio

Do you know what shows up on a background check?

Spoiler:

Do you think I would hire someone 2 watch my child... if they failed a background check?

Spoiler:

Intentionally doesn't quote the other two post where I say if I find out new evidence I would discontinue their service and investigate lul

Last edited by DarkStarMagnolia; 10-06-2018 at 02:24 AM.

10-06-2018 , 02:05 AM

#7759

Johnny Truant

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 8,058

Quote:

Originally Posted by businessdude

Hmmm. Yes. Like, I’m assuming he denies it under oath and lies about other things as well or did he admit it way back when and make a change, and see the error of his ways? Cuz that matters a lot. That’s an entirely different person than Kavanaugh, though.

By the way, it’s not about imminent danger at all, it is about being disqualified from a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS. You should be way better than average for that. Better than me. Better than you. Better than this pos.

10-06-2018 , 02:10 AM

#7760

grizy

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 20,788

You’re an absolute idiot if you hire someone who’s got credible sexual assault allegations against him.

Unless you’re an NFL team or the Republicans apparently.

10-06-2018 , 02:43 AM

#7761

chymechowder

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 9,584

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

Your sexism is showing.

hahaha! I was referring to a DUDE a couple posts up who had just promoted the restaurant-hissy fit strategy, but don't let that stop you from turning it into something that it wasn't. (seriously, good for you to keep your eye on the virtue-signaling prize.)

10-06-2018 , 02:47 AM

#7762

Luciom

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 13,171

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominic

So explain this to me:

If the Dems flip the Senate and decide to put two more people on the SCOTUS, what’s to stop the Repubs from doing the same when they inevitably become a majority again? And so on and so on...seems like it would just make the Supreme Court strictly a partisan tool of the Party in power.

court packing requires a trifecta (potus + senate + house).

It makes scotus a partisan tool , but not of the party currently in power, but of the last party that had a trifecta.

Which could be a better arrangement of what you have currently. Currently Scotus depends on vagaries like who randomly dies and exactly when. At least in a court packing system when voters are really in favour of a party, that's what Scotus is going to reflect

10-06-2018 , 02:53 AM

#7763

chymechowder

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 9,584

Quote:

Originally Posted by PartyGirlUK

I've seen lots of takes from 'moderate conservatives' that without Avenatti the nomination would have gone down but this strikes me as just wanted to dunk on Avenatti.

But I'm curious whether anyone ITT who excoriated those who expressed reservations about the credibility of Swetnick's allegations have changed their minds?

it wasn't avenatti's FAULT, per se. but there's no denying that he promoted a garbage claim. and when people like Feinstein and Hirono promoted it (just because they so desperately WANTED it to be credible), it was a huge unforced error that gave their opponents an easy talking point.

10-06-2018 , 03:51 AM

#7764

Kevin J

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,012

Quote:

Originally Posted by businessdude

It get's more to what I asked in a previous post here - how much weight do you give to teenage behavior ( and 35 year old teenage behavior) even if they are totally true? I.e. what if BK beat somebody up at 17, and it was known with 100% certainty - does that disqualify him AND would you think he was a threat to beat people up today?

Regardless of what you feel the expiration date should be on checkered pasts you should at least agree that repeated outright lying during a confirmation process is utterly disqualifying for any job let alone a lifetime appointment to a SCOTUS seat. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that

10-06-2018 , 04:03 AM

#7765

Luciom

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 13,171

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin J

And anyway for any exceedingly powerful appointment (top 50-100 slots in public service, scotus included) a purity test can be warranted, with a population of 330M people supposedly you can find hyper-qualified individuals who also never did anything gross their whole lifetime.

I an understand being wary of purity tests for normal job applications, or for political appointments at the lower level.

But there is nothing damaging to society in asking that scotus members should be stellar examplars of the best that humanity can offer, among law experts.

10-06-2018 , 04:44 AM

#7766

businessdude

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 10,913

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin J

I've only roughly followed this event, and haven't seen a list of things he lied about.

10-06-2018 , 04:45 AM

#7767

Matty Lice

veteran

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 3,438

Quote:

Originally Posted by wheatrich

I'm aware of all these things, you also need to grow up.

I need to grow up? Trump is in love with dictators and his supporters love it.

LOL **** off with your passive "Hey simmer down here!" bull****.

The GOP laughs at people like you. Tell us more about your feelings.

Either get w/ the program and realize we are under attack or **** off.

Last edited by Matty Lice; 10-06-2018 at 04:56 AM.

10-06-2018 , 04:47 AM

#7768

Mat Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 10,074

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pwn_Master

My read is that he is a smug, obnoxious, self-important, attention whore. Thus, posting obnoxiously ITT about how much he doesn’t care brings him the attention he desires and pleasure. Very clearly worth his time.

Being statistically insignificant vote #12,425,578 in an election does not satisfy his defective personality. Just the opposite actually, the idea that his opinion counts just the same as anyone else's is anathema to him.

People are weird and generally suck, in a wide variety of ways. For all the problems we have, it’s quite amazing that society works at all.

there's some truth there, but mostly i become overwhelmed not feeling confident about the right choice and therefore don't make one. on this topic, for instance, everyone seemed credible when they testified. i could not form a concrete opinion or take a side.

10-06-2018 , 05:40 AM

#7769

epcfast

veteran

Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 2,535

Quote:

everyone seemed credible when they testified

Did you go to Wharton Mat?

10-06-2018 , 05:50 AM

#7770

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 48,685

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mat Sklansky

Did you find BKs peformance in anyway different to what you would expect if he is guilty?

It's a bit unfair but his testament is essentially valueless (unless he confesses). With Ford on the other hand, it's very hard to imagine that she wasn't telling the truth.

10-06-2018 , 05:54 AM

#7771

Mat Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 10,074

i was just answering jman's question. no words on this message board will make me feel differently about this. and i realize my perspective is troubling and stupid to some people. sorry.

10-06-2018 , 06:00 AM

#7772

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 48,685

No need to apologise.

If you can be arsed, I'd still like to know if and how you would expect BKs testimony to differ in any important way depending on whether he is guity or not.

10-06-2018 , 06:05 AM

#7773

Mat Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 10,074

i don't have an answer.

10-06-2018 , 06:46 AM

#7774

Clovis8

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 16,503

This thread title needs to be changed to “a bunch of Charlie Browns debate the most absurd ways to make Lucy stop with the football”.

The dems are never ever, under any circumstances, going to impeach Kavanaugh. How many times are you all going to fall for Lucy’s game?

10-06-2018 , 08:16 AM

#7775

eyebooger

Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 59,520

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mat Sklansky

everyone seemed credible when they testified.

I keep seeing this, and it's bull****.

From the September 27 hearing:

Quote:

DURBIN: Dr. Ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe Brett Kavanaugh assaulted you?

FORD: One hundred percent.

And later:

Quote:

KENNEDY: None of these allegations are true?

KAVANAUGH: Correct.

KENNEDY: No doubt in your mind?

KAVANAUGH: Zero, I’m 100 percent certain.

KENNEDY: Not even a scintilla?

KAVANAUGH: Not a scintilla; 100 percent certain, senator.

KENNEDY: You swear to God?

KAVANAUGH: I swear to God.

At least one of Ford or Kavanaugh are lying here.

So if you think that Kavanaugh should be a SCOTUS judge, you either:
A) Think Ford is lying (not "confused" or "not remembering" or some other weasel words)
B) Don't care that it happened and also don't care that he lied about it.

Those are the two options.

Page 311 of 355

First

111 211 261 291 301 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 321 331

Last

...

Page 311 of 355

First

111 211 261 291 301 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 321 331

Last