Kansas Crimson

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:47 pm**

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:38 pm
jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:17 pm So: what happened, then? Did the GOP just blow this one in the layoff line, then, by nominating a candidate with a bad background?
I don't think we've established that he has a "bad background". It is a supposition made by people with an agenda who are unbound by the constraints of concepts like truth, ethics, and justice. By your standard, anyone the Democrats don't like has a "bad background".

I mean, even before the sexual assault stuff there was a lot of smoke to Kavanaugh's background. And, as I've said here and on the other board, the standard here is not that you have to prove him guilty of sexual assault to refuse to confirm. That's not how this works.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:51 pm**

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:47 pm
HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:38 pm
jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:17 pm So: what happened, then? Did the GOP just blow this one in the layoff line, then, by nominating a candidate with a bad background?
I don't think we've established that he has a "bad background". It is a supposition made by people with an agenda who are unbound by the constraints of concepts like truth, ethics, and justice. By your standard, anyone the Democrats don't like has a "bad background".
I mean, even before the sexual assault stuff there was a lot of smoke to Kavanaugh's background. And, as I've said here and on the other board, the standard here is not that you have to prove him guilty of sexual assault to refuse to confirm. That's not how this works.

I'm not aware of anything unusually negative. From what I have read, he is a legal savant with an exemplary record and work ethic. If the standard is sainthood, then nobody should be on the court.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:58 pm**

I think he should have to give fuller and more specific explanations of his actions while in the GWB White House, and in respect of his personal finances. And both of those areas were known yellow or red flags before any of the sexual assault issues came to light.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:13 pm**

plus the how many thousands of documents about him that the WH wouldn’t release? Did we ever get closure on that?

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:19 pm**

seahawk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:21 am Seems like there's another allegation surfacing. Perhaps we could remember that this is not a trial, but a job interview. One which seems to be revealing that the would be employee is a high functioning alcoholic who has a gambling problem and some past unpleasant behavior with women.

Would seem that the question is not about some media conspiracy, but isn't there another potential employee with credentials, who doesn't have the same problems that make this one's future problematic?

Calling somebody am alcoholic is a strong claim. Please justify.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:27 pm**

The nominating process for SCOTUS has become absurd. Yeah, the pubs definitely started it by refusing to consider Garland, which was a travesty.

This whole thing reeks of revenge for that.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:54 pm**

Mjl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:27 pm This whole thing reeks of revenge.

Bingo.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:59 pm**

If this can be called revenge, then what can you call the GOP treatment of Garland?

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:05 pm**

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:59 pm If this can be called revenge, then what can you call the GOP treatment of Garland?

Strategy?

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:44 pm**

so why can’t this be called strategy by the libtards?

and, as has been asserted, why do so many people avoid calling this credible?

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:06 pm**

https://abc7news.com/politics/brett-kav ... r/4330055/

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:14 pm**

Ohhh!

(Also hey geezer, would you be so kind as to provide an article title or context instead of just posting a link, pretty please?)

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:46 pm**

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:44 pm so why can’t this be called strategy by the libtards?

and, as has been asserted, why do so many people avoid calling this credible?

My problem with calling it strategy is that with Garland, they simply refused to confirm, whereas they are intentionally smearing, and, in my opinion, trying to ruin Kavanaugh. In my view, that is a huge moral difference.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:17 pm**

Moral difference?? This Congress or this administration. Please.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:41 pm**

Have read comments by several different people who drank alcoholically in high school and college and then got sober and remained sober for a long period of time. All felt that the commentary by Kavanaugh in 2014 when speaking of his alcoholic, binge drinking days in high school and college indicated someone who hadn't gotten past abusing alcohol.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:53 pm**

Renate alumnius!

Keg City Club (Treasurer) - 100 kegs or bust!

Judge - have you boofed yet

lulz

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/busi ... enate.html

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:56 pm**

the lawyer statement is, he was just bragging about kissing her at a high school event.

Wtf?

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:04 pm**

Geezer wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:06 pm https://abc7news.com/politics/brett-kav ... r/4330055/

lulz...

Brett and I did not socialize beyond the first few days of freshman year

I did not observe the specific incident in question

Good lord.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:09 pm**

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:53 pm Renate alumnius!

Keg City Club (Treasurer) - 100 kegs or bust!

Judge - have you boofed yet

lulz

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/busi ... enate.html

So...now bragging about sex you didn't have is disqualifying?

You people are gonna have to make up your minds.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:14 pm**

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:59 pm If this can be called revenge, then what can you call the GOP treatment of Garland?

As stated the line before, a travesty

Kansas Crimson

Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...

Re: Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...

Re: Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...

Re: Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...

Re: Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...

Re: Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...

Re: Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...

Re: Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...

Re: Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...

Re: Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...

Re: Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...

Re: Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...

Re: Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...

Re: Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...

Re: Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...

Re: Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...

Re: Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...

Re: Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...

Re: Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...

Re: Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...

Re: Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...