Kavanaugh endorsement rescinded

[Erikaspirit16]

a story from last year’s event means nothing.

OK. Let’s go back to the 80’s. Here’s a news story about women who were prep school students in the early- mid-80s. Keg-parties and assaults: Women from Catholic high schools in Washington area break 'culture of silence' Here’s a quotation from one of the women: " Allyson Redpath, who graduated from Stone Ridge in 1982, said she heard from other girls from an early age that she should be wary of the boys from Georgetown Prep, which she and several other women who spoke to NBC News said had the worst reputation for misbehavior of the boys’ Catholic schools in the area." Both Stone Ridge and Georgetown Prep are in Bethesda. Both are on Wisconsin Ave. As an example, Katie Ledekcy the swimmer graduated from Stone Ridge.

Here’s a quotation from a joint letter from several headmasters of private schools in the DC area to parents, written in 1990:

“It would be hard to devise a better recipe for disaster than a social scene that includes the anonymity provided by an ‘open party,’ no adult supervision, considerable amounts of alcohol, and teenage hormones which encourage sexual or violent behavior,"

That’s not 2018. That’s 1990.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

anyone nominated by President Trump would have been trashed.

Really? Was Gorsuch trashed? And–in case you forgot–he ALSO went to Georgetown Prep. Minus the drinking and sexual innuendo.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

And let’s not forget that until a month ago Kav did have a clean background and has now been the most thoroughly investigated Supreme Court candidate in history. And with that, still no evidence, corroboration or CREDIBLE accusations. His record on the bench is impeccable as well.

 

[PetraG]

So still liking beer is sufficient to make him a drunk? And make him guilty of everything Ford claimed?

If someone accuses you of being a mama’s boy and you go on a spittle-flecked nutty about how much you love your mother, how you are certain your accuser loves his mother and that you won’t stand for attacks on motherhood, you’ve made a pretty poor case for the premise that you are not a mama’s boy. Maybe you aren’t, but your attempt at self-defense is an utter failure.

I don’t think Judge Kavanaugh made a very good case for the premise that he has never had a drinking problem. In my neck of the woods, when someone says, “Passed out would be no, but I’ve gone to sleep. But I’ve never blacked out. That’s the allegation . . . and that’s wrong,” his friends respond with: “Gone to sleep? Dude, admit it, you passed out.” And obviously, no one who blacks out can remember having been blacked out. People tell them they did things, they have no memory of it, and they choose not to accuse people telling them about their behavior of being liars. (In some cases, we all know, no one actually tells the drunk about all the embarrassing things he did while drunk, because the people around him who were also drinking too much either don’t realize that he doesn’t know or don’t want to be reminded of how they must have appeared to him!)

 

[Erikaspirit16]

if the Democrats win, confirm no one else nominated by President Trump for as long as Trump serves and they are in the majority.

I think if a reasonable non-political candidate were put forward, they would happily vote for him / her. Just as both parties have done in the past.

 

[PetraG]

I think if a reasonable non-political candidate were put forward, they would happily vote for him / her. Just as both parties have done in the past.

In the past, there was such a THING as a “non-political” candidate and such a thing as a non-partisan discussion in Congress.

The President was elected in spite of some issues of his own because of voters who wanted the kind of Supreme Court justices he would appoint rather than the ones his opponent would have nominated.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

until a month ago Kav did have a clean background and has now been the most thoroughly investigated Supreme Court candidate in history. And with that, still no evidence, corroboration or CREDIBLE accusations. His record on the bench is impeccable as well.

That is your opinion. It’s not fact. I think the opposite. That’s my opinion. It’s not fact either.

 

[HarryStotle]

Augustinian:

anyone nominated by President Trump would have been trashed.

Really? Was Gorsuch trashed?

Gorsuch wasn’t tipping the balance of the Court to a conservative majority. That is a key difference when the Democrats are used to legislating from the bench. With the midterms coming up, keeping the Supreme Court tilted to the left would keep the balance of power in their favor.
I suspect they overplayed their hand and this will backfire, precisely because it is demonstrating the ends to which they will go to hold power.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Before Mr. Kavanaugh’s name was even mentioned, the Democrats announced they were going to fight whomever was nominated by Trump to replace Kennedy, and defeat and destroy the candidate by any means necessary.

Please show me the quotation where ANY Democratic leader said “by any means necessary.” You’re quoting Malcolm X, not the Democrats.

But you’re right about one thing: if the Democrats get a majority in the Senate, kiss those conservative Supreme Court nominees good-bye.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

That is your opinion. It’s not fact. I think the opposite. That’s my opinion. It’s not fact either.

It is a fact that if there were any corroboration or consistency with these allegations, that things would be different right now for Kavanaugh. It’s quite a different matter than hearing someone’s story and deciding that you believe them regardless of a lack of those things.

 

[Augustinian]

But you’re right about one thing: if the Democrats get a majority in the Senate, kiss those conservative Supreme Court nominees good-bye.

Not just Supreme Court nominees. Also lower federal court nominees and other federal appointments.

When President Bush was serving, he nominated guys like Pickering for federal judge and Bolton for UN ambassador, and the Democrats never gave them a hearing or a vote.

And the Democrats LIKED President Bush, in comparison to the raw hatred they have for Donald J. Trump.

You can say good bye to any nominees for positions for the next 2 years. I guess it will take a burden off of the President’s workload, giving him more time for rallies and tweets and meeting with foreign leaders

 

[Augustinian]

I think if a reasonable non-political candidate were put forward, they would happily vote for him / her. Just as both parties have done in the past.

Actually, if Kav were defeated, any new candidate would probably have to be someone deeply into politics- someone like Sen. Cruz or Sen. Lee., who knows how to attack and fight in the trenches with the best.

Kavanaugh really doesn’t have the experience at down-and-dirty politics, and the Democrats are committed to pushing this past the election.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

It’s just my opinion of course but I think that the actions of the democrats have cemented a big red wave for next month. I think they have finally pushed things too far with their underhanded dirtiness and people are sick of it. I could be wrong but we will see.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

So still liking beer is sufficient to make him a drunk? And make him guilty of everything Ford claimed?

If someone accuses you of being a mama’s boy and you go on a spittle-flecked nutty about how much you love your mother, how you are certain your accuser loves his mother and that you won’t stand for attacks on motherhood, you’ve made a pretty poor case for the premise that you are not a mama’s boy. Maybe you aren’t, but your attempt at self-defense is an utter failure.

I don’t think Judge Kavanaugh made a very good case for the premise that he has never had a drinking problem. In my neck of the woods, when someone says, “Passed out would be no, but I’ve gone to sleep. But I’ve never blacked out. That’s the allegation . . . and that’s wrong,” his friends respond with: “Gone to sleep? Dude, admit it, you passed out.” And obviously, no one who blacks out can remember having been blacked out. People tell them they did things, they have no memory of it, and they choose not to accuse people telling them about their behavior of being liars. (In some cases, we all know, no one actually tells the drunk about all the embarrassing things he did while drunk, because the people around him who were also drinking too much either don’t realize that he doesn’t know or don’t want to be reminded of how they must have appeared to him!)

I am not buying your analysis because there is a difference to be made between passing out or falling asleep from drinking and ‘blanking out,’ meaning staying awake and mobile but not remembering anything of what you did while remaining upright. Kavanaugh claimed he never experienced the latter.

Anyone who has ever drunk to excess in their lives or knows others who have will tell you there is a difference. Some people can hold their liquor, stay upright and mobile even though their frontal lobe (consciousness) has shut down. Others just lose consciousness and fall asleep.

My guess is that those who don’t recognize the difference have not had many or any episodes of drinking to excess, which is why they cannot comprehend the difference. I had a number of such experiences in high school, never lost consciousness while staying upright, but would fall asleep. I had enough self-control to still recognize the tipping point, and I’ve never been drunk since high school. Kavanaugh’s testimony rings true to me, because losing physical control (inebriation) was the cutoff point that I would not go past in my drinking. It is a personality thing.

You may not comprehend it because it likely is not in the realm of your past experiences.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I could be wrong but we will see.

Yes, we will. My town is almost evenly divided between registered Republicans and registered Democrats. In the primaries, the Republicans voted in the numbers they historically voted. No change. On the Democratic side, TWICE as many voted as usually vote. And that was a primary. So yes, we’ll see. Don’t bet a lot of money on the Republicans.

 

[on_the_hill]

Then I gave examples of what I personally would expect

Yes, and I explained why your expectations were wrong. And I know how a complaint should be handled because I’ve been trained and have handled complaints in the workplace.

 

[deMontfort]

Only took 670+ post for Godwin’s Law to be triggered ROFL

 

[Gingersnaps4]

As for trump shooting someone etc, I think many people support Trump over certain things they otherwise wouldn’t because they see the rabid hatred of him by democrats, how they pounce on any little thing that they can, their blind hatred and complete unwillingness to budge over anything. So that makes his supporters swing the opposite way and overly support him. I myself am guilty of that, at times. The rabid hatred is just evil, intolerant and irrational and it only naturally causes a reaction.

As for voting, we will indeed see. I don’t doubt that more democrats turned out because again, the rabid hatred. Over the past decade the Democratic Party has morphed into something completely unrecognizable to what it traditionally had been. But I don’t underestimate the silent majority who speak with their votes rather than by bullying and intimidation.

 

[HarryStotle]

Augustinian:

Before Mr. Kavanaugh’s name was even mentioned, the Democrats announced they were going to fight whomever was nominated by Trump to replace Kennedy, and defeat and destroy the candidate by any means necessary.

Please show me the quotation where ANY Democratic leader said “by any means necessary.” You’re quoting Malcolm X, not the Democrats.

So your standard for judgement isn’t what people DO but what they SAY?

A murderer who merely doesn’t say, “I used any means necessary,” must be innocent of using any means merely because they don’t speak or acknowledge it?

Were the Dems using “any means necessary,” even though they don’t admit to using any means necessary.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

So still liking beer is sufficient to make him a drunk? And make him guilty of everything Ford claimed?

If someone accuses you of being a mama’s boy and you go on a spittle-flecked nutty about how much you love your mother, how you are certain your accuser loves his mother and that you won’t stand for attacks on motherhood, you’ve made a pretty poor case for the premise that you are not a mama’s boy. Maybe you aren’t, but your attempt at self-defense is an utter failure.

Well, the “spit-flecked nutty” may have nothing to do with the current accusation, but that a vulnerable psyche may have been poked. This is why someone’s reaction to an accusation or allegation may be psychologically revealing but it doesn’t necessarily relate to the incident being brought forward.

You have no idea what Kavanaugh and his family were put through and the pressure on him at the moment, so your “analysis” doesn’t hold water.

You wouldn’t want Kavanaugh or any judge applying the standard of “spittle-flecked nutty” in determining guilt, would you?

Some of the most vicious and hardened criminals can stay quite cool and collected under pressure.

Again, whether Kavanaugh showed emotion, became defensive, or maintained serene poise demonstrates nothing at all. A very guilty person could remain calm and an innocent person be simply overwhelmed by what is at stake.

Not a good standard.

EVIDENCE alone should determine the outcome.