Kavanaugh endorsement rescinded

[Erikaspirit16]

The rabid hatred is just evil, intolerant and irrational and it only naturally causes a reaction.

Interesting. I think Trump is evil. Those who give him unquestioning support are evil because they are supporting evil. So there we go–disagreement.

I could give thousands of examples, but I’ll limit myself to one, and one I have never seen anyone else comment on. A couple months ago, Peter Navarro (yeah, the guy who said “There’s a special place in Hell for Justin Trudeau…” no hate there, right?) is Trump’s Director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy. He went on the PBS Newshour to give an extended interview on Trump’s trade policy–i.e. tariffs on everyone on earth. Trump is, of course, a 18th c. mercantilist; mercantilists were proven wrong by David Ricardo in the 1780s, but hey, Trump’s a slow learner. In any case, Navarro was trying to explain why imports are bad. He gave the elementary formula (econ 101) GDP = C + I + G + X - M (C is consumption, I investment, G government, X exports, and M imports). So he wrote the formula on a white board and triumphantly exclaimed “There that proves it! If imports increase, since they are subtracted from the right side of the equation, GDP goes down!!!” The PBS interviewer let it pass. A month or so later PBS repeated that segment, again without comment.

So Navarro is 100% wrong of course. You see that right? No? OK. let’s do a few examples. You buy a new Mercedes, imported from Germany. That adds to M, imports. But guess what? You are buying a consumer good. It also adds the same amount to C. OK, what if a factory buys some machine tools from Brazil. That adds to M, right? Thus making our GDP go down…wait, isn’t that also adding the exact same amount to the “Investment” amount? And how does it make GDP go DOWN when the US is now using more machine tools to produce more products…??? How about G? The government buys Baretta pistols from Italy. An import. But guess what? The exact same amount is added to G in the formula. In other words, the purpose of putting M (imports) in the equation is to subtract out the exact same amounts you’ve added to C + I + G. It balances. By definition. The amount of imports doesn’t affect GDP at all. Navarro is lying. So why do I hate Trump? Because he is relying on the ignorance of the population; he can say any nonsense he wants and 35% of the population will believe him. “I am the first Republican presidential candidate to win Wisconsin since Eisenhower in 1952!” Sure you are. Except for Eisenhower in 1956, Nixon in 1960, Nixon in 1968, Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1982, and Reagan in 1986. And when that’s pointed out to him, he doesn’t care! He doubles down! Pure, unadulterated evil.

 

[Augustinian]

Interesting. I think Trump is evil.

Thank you.

This is the real problem that people have with Kavanaugh. They really have not a care in the world about what various slang terms meant a couple of generations ago that were written in the man’s yearbook.

The problem is the man was nominated by someone seen as inhumanly evil. So any means to destroy him have to be used. There isn’t any proof that Kav and his friend Judge organized Rape Train parties. None whatsoever.

“Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is the key Latin phrase here. At least some of the testimony offered by the Democrats to opposed Kav is false, I can’t see how we can say any of it is worthy to be believed.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Haha. I guess we can “fact check” all of the lies/ignorant untruths that the last 10 presidents told, then. They are all evil by those standards. “You can keep your own insurance plan if you like it, and average premium costs will decrease by $3500 per family” ranks much higher up there in scale on an evil lie than figuring numbers wrong with GDP, if you measure how it has directly affected people. And the media ate that up and didn’t issue corrections!!! So unless Obama’s is equally evil or more so, that’s a hypocritical viewpoint.

What Trump has done is WORKING for our economy, we are thriving now with the lowest unemployment in history, and the democrats cannot stand that. The US has been on the losing end of international tariffs for a long time. I can’t understand why it’s wrong or evil if we impose tariffs on a scale in line with what European countries and Canada and Asia have been doing to us practically forever. And it is objectively better for us if we are able to be self sufficient and have jobs for everyone of varying skills. I am in the antique and vintage item business and I am continually in awe over how almost every single thing I come across from 40+ years ago was made in the USA. These days it’s pretty much retail or nothing for low skilled workers and they have a much bleaker future than they did in the past. Lower income and especially minorities are doing better today than they were a few years ago, on the job front. And that kills people! Sad.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

I find it incredibly ironic that the left is more irrational and conspiracy-theory driven with regard to Trump than were the people on the far right who were mocked over their views of Obama. Pure unadulterated evil, indeed! You can’t have a rational conversation with people that hold that view of someone.

 

[bobperk]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The problem is the man was nominated by someone seen as inhumanly evil. So any means to destroy him have to be used.

Again, go back to Gorsuch. No scandal. No circus. Sure, a lot of Democrats voted against him for political reasons. But no one challenged his personal integrity. And again, I want to remind you he graduated from the same prep school Kavanaugh did.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Haha. I guess we can “fact check” all of the lies/ignorant untruths that the last 10 presidents told, then. They are all evil by those standards. “You can keep your own insurance plan if you like it, and average premium costs will decrease by $3500 per family” ranks much higher up there in scale on an evil lie than figuring numbers wrong with GDP, if you measure how it has directly affected people. And the media ate that up and didn’t issue corrections!!! So unless Obama’s is equally evil or more so, that’s a hypocritical viewpoint.

Show me where I’ve written that all Democratic presidents have always told the truth…you can’t, because I would never say such a thing. And yes, I agree with you completely, Obama knowingly lied when he said you could keep your own insurance plan and premium costs would go down. I might give him a tiny bit of leeway because he was giving the most optimistic scenario. But no one who knows anything about insurance thought he was right. He lied, pure and simple, and I’m sure he knew it. And the media discussed it at the time. Maybe you missed that. But Trump lies about EVERYTHING on a grand scale.

What Trump has done for the economy? No–it’s IN SPITE OF Trump. The economy was going great under Obama and has simply continued that trend–although Trump has slowed it. The job numbers for last month, for example, were about half what they need to be just to stay even. A multitude of studies have shown that the decline in manufacturing jobs is almost entirely (90%) due to automation, not imports. And tariffs? It may have escaped your notice, but other countries are busy making free trade deals among themselves. Canada just made a deal with the EU. The other countries in the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal? They all signed it, leaving out the US. Wait till the full effect of the tariffs hits. Then we’ll talk.

 

[PetraG]

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.

His response wasn’t evidence of some particular problem but rather evidence that a problem could be a concern.

People with alcohol problems deny they have problems. They say things like, “I didn’t pass out, I just fell asleep.” More to the point, if no one ever tells them about things they did that they have no memory of ever doing, of course it is no blame on them if they later deny they ever did them. They honestly don’t know.

Kavanaugh himself said this: "“I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said.”

This is what I call the difference between making an apology and making an excuse. When you make an excuse, you say, “I’m sorry I did X, but I was dealing with Y” whereas when you are making an apology you say, “I was dealing with Y, but that is no excuse for X, for which I am sorry.” In other words, Kavanaugh’s assessment of his performance was a real apology; he didn’t make excuses for how he spoke to Congress. I take that as a good thing.

 

[Start]

What if they posted it on nbc news?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

What if they posted it on nbc news?

I’m not sure what “it” means, but I’ll assume it was the Lifesite News article. NBC wouldn’t have run it because it was worthless. I actually read the links people post. If you go to the Lifesite link, you’ll see (as I said before…and when I start repeating myself all the time I drop out of the thread…) it’s simply quoting a Breitbart column. And if you go to THAT (which I did), you’ll see it’s simply an opinion column written by some guy. And all he does is make a list (which is accurately quoted much earlier here). No evidence, no arguments, just a list. So worthless.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

What Trump has done for the economy? No–it’s IN SPITE OF Trump. The economy was going great under Obama and has simply continued that trend–although Trump has slowed it. The job numbers for last month, for example, were about half what they need to be just to stay even. A multitude of studies have shown that the decline in manufacturing jobs is almost entirely (90%) due to automation, not imports. And tariffs? It may have escaped your notice, but other countries are busy making free trade deals among themselves. Canada just made a deal with the EU. The other countries in the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal? They all signed it, leaving out the US. Wait till the full effect of the tariffs hits. Then we’ll talk.

I’m sorry but this bears no semblance to reality. I’ve noticed that the people who hate trump have many times created this alternate reality in which Obama is responsible for the unemployment, stock market, etc. it’s just not the truth. The timing of it all doesn’t even line up.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Oh and Trump has said he is all for completely free trade! The other countries don’t think they can be competitive if all tariffs are dropped. Canada said no, that they won’t drop their very high dairy and other protectionist food industry tariffs.

 

[pnewton]

Exactly. And Christine? Obviously a liar according to almost all posters here.

And that has the added ill effect of discouraging victims of sexual abuse. It is all fine to accept there simply is no evidence to act on, but that acceptance needs to respect the bravery of a woman that opened herself up for what she believed. Then we could have Kavanaugh confirmed without sending a message that nothing has changed in regards to sexual harassment in this decade.

I applaud Senator Manchin for his bravery as well. Partisanship should not be part of the confirmation process, but such is the world the Democrats have made. Yes, I will blame them primarily. Sotomayor received nine Republican votes, showing at least some in the Senate among the Republicans understand the Constitution.

 

[HarryStotle]

Start:

What if they posted it on nbc news?

I’m not sure what “it” means, but I’ll assume it was the Lifesite News article. NBC wouldn’t have run it because it was worthless.

You mean like this one that NBC did run?

Libel? NBC News Manufactures Text Messages Story to Claim Kavanaugh Lied Under Oath

pjmedia.com

 

[pnewton]

Did NBC manufacture text messages? In the article this journalist (to use the word loosely) claims it was " a manufactured hit from lawyer Kerry Berchem" and accepts that they did exist, but says it was not relevant.

I get reading news critically, but if you want to take the news from a guy in PJ’s who can’t keep his story right from paragraph to paragraph, you could do far worse than any of the major networks. But such will be the presidential legacy, I am afraid.

 

[Quis_UtDeus]

“Boofing” is ingesting beer or drugs through your anus. It was featured in the recent movie “… Blockers.” Devil’s Triangle is a sexual threesome with two males and a female. “FFFF”–as everyone knows–is “Find’em, Feel’em, F…'em, Forget’em.”

As for the movie Blockers, I can assure you it is very possible that the slang of a 2018 comedic movie can be very different than the slang of highschool DC kids in the 1980s. “Boof” is not a very hard word to produce for comedic value.

Therefore it is very possible that what you claimed is not what he meant back in the 1980s based on a 2018 movie.

As for the other slang words, can you substantiate any of these claims with any piece of evidence from the 1980s?

The point is that by featuring them in his h.s. bio in his yearbook, he is showing that not only was he familiar with these terms (in high school!) but he to some degree approved of their message toward women.

If those claims about the slang terms are true, then this particular statement still doesn’t follow.
A joke about something does not mean you approve of “a message” it gives.

To show this, have you heard of Ligma?

“Presumption of innocence” is an American legal concept.

Completely false. This was actually an ancient presumption coming all the way from the Roman legal system. They had a phrase Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat or “Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies.”

A lot of very democratic and civilized countries (France, Italy…) don’t have it.

1. Again, completely false for both france and italy
2. Just because they would have it does not make it okay.

 

[Quis_UtDeus]

This is not a court of law, and Kavanaugh is not on trial. It’s a job interview. And I would not hire someone to work at Burger King who had been credibly accused of those charges, let alone the Supreme Court.

You still cannot think it is morally justifiable to assume that this person is guilty simply because there exists an accusation. It is a horrible reason especially if you don’t at least investigate into the matter or set precautions.

Then this shows you are a very judgemental person and does not follow Christ’s words in John 7:24.
This does not show it is morally acceptable to assume someone is guilty before their innocence. If so, even outside of court of law, many abhorrent things could happen.

Furthermore, if this truly is a justification to prevent one from having a job, theoretically no one would have said job as long as there is someone to make an accusation, no matter how unsupported.

The presumption of innocence should not even be a matter debated, this is a pillar of investigative justice and everyday interaction as well as adhering to Christ’s teachings in John 7:24.

Really? Even though she came forward with the charges BEFORE Kavanaugh was the nominee? When he was simply a name on Trump’s list of possible nominees?

The fact he was on the list makes him a possible candidate for SC Justice. She came forward in July 6 and Justice Kennedy announces retirement in June 27. Your latter statement makes it very possible this is a possible motive yes. All things considered it is very possible that if she thinks it could prevent a 5th seat from being filled if there is a chance that Kavanaugh happened to be nominated by the President. It is very possible that she could have taken a “better safe then sorry” approach and make the claim due to the now open 5th seat.

Is Christine so naive and stupid that she thinks she can block ALL conservatives nominees?

I never claimed nor implied this.

She was only interested in blocking one nominee: Kavanaugh.

Exactly what I just claimed and exactly my point. This does not contradict what I said about motive.

We all know perfectly well that the Republicans are going to ram a ultra-conservative justice down our throats.

Irrelevant. They have the right to do so as Democrats would if they had the Presidency and the Senate.

 

[Quis_UtDeus]

No one said this incident took place during Beach Week–in fact, just the opposite. During Beach Week, Kavanaugh would have been 100+ miles away, at Ocean City MD.

Then I fail to see the point to this.

If you are really curious about Beach Week, all you have to do is watch the movie “The Graduates” (2008) about what happens at Ocean City MD during Beach Week.

I find your constant appeal to movies and online urban dictionaries extremely concerning. If you truly think that modern movies with various messages and changed culture as well as online jokes in a website sufficient research into a culture of the 1980s, then you seriously need to rethink your entire epistemology.

Especially before you start acting judgemental towards a man and commentating about his lifestyle.

As for sexual behavior at prep schools, take a look at an interesting book published 10 years ago about Milton Academy (Robert & Ted Kennedy are alumni) after they had a sensational sex scandal: “Restless Virgins: Love, Sex, and Survival in Prep School.” Teachers were doing nasty things, and the students were pretty nasty, too. It gives some context to the current issue.

Refer to what I said about generalizations. I won’t repeat myself.

It’s not necessary to “prove” Kavanaugh did anything.

IF you are going to make definitive claims about his life and definitive claims about a possible crime and deny him a position he is qualified for ONLY based off of an unrpoven allegation, then yes it is.

To think otherwise is extremely immoral.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Kavanaugh is now one of America’s Supreme Court Judges.

Wonder what this means for the future…

 

[otjm]

America Magazine has had a long history of being progressive, so it should come as no surprise that they would suggest going to another candidate.

This whole issue was not about Judge Kavanaugh, as should be crystal clear to anyone paying attention; before the list even came out as to the possible candidates, various Democrats were coming out saying they were opposed to the (not yet selected) candidate.

This was only partially about Merrick Garland not being seated; the Republicans simply used the Joe Biden rule in which he said that at the end of a term, no one should be considered and seated.

It is only partially about Roe vs. Wade; first, because it is highly unlikely a case will come before the SC which would set up a reversal of that (stare decisis), and second, because any decisions about it are likely to rule in favor of the whole issue being decided by the States, rather than the Federal Government.

It was partially about the Democrats hoping and believing there would be a blue wave, and they could block any seating of anyone Trump proposed (and they have said this publicly and repeatedly).

The two driving forces are the Progressives hatred of Trump, and the fact that Progressives have relied on the SC to effectively alter the purpose of the SC, making it into a super legislative body to modify things such as gay “marriage”, attacks on religious freedom, and other issues they have with the Constitution; see, for example, public statements by Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

As to what it means for the future, it means that cases are far more likely to be decided on the Constitution as written, rather than any “penumbra” as set forth by prior SC decisions. For example, the Constitution says nothing about privacy being a matter coming from it.

Well before he was confirmed, about the time their case with Dr.Ford was beginning to unravel, a number of members of Congress vowed they would move to impeach Kavanaugh. This case has gone through numerous attempts to delay in hopes that the election would move in their favor.