Kavanaugh endorsement rescinded

[PetraG]

That is certainly true. But they can launch an investigation into the event, interview people on both sides and when there are discrepancies- and there will be- that can be prosecuted as “perjury” which is as good a reason to impeach as any other.

I was at the funeral home a couple of years ago for the father of one of my high school chums who I hadn’t seen for quite some time… I was chatting a bit with his now adult son - grandson of the deceased- and I got related back to me about some jackpot I was involved with my chum back in the day. The recollection that was given back to me on this was different than I remembered- and everyone there were people of good will.

In an adversarial confrontation like the Rape Train Impeachment investigation, the whole thing would be amplified and look serious enough to impeach.

The Congress is not so full of fools and scoundrels as you imagine.

Removing a President of the United States or a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court is something Congress has rarely entertained doing (I mean by actual impeachment, not by individual show-off political speeches) and something the Senate has never done. There is a good reason for that.

 

[PetraG]

We can argue all day about whether Donald Trump’s demonstrable falsehoods are more or less acceptable or more or less brazen than the demonstrable falsehoods perpetuated by anyone else in politics, but that is getting afield of the topic, I think.

I don’t think the Trump Administration is so tainted by falsehood that Justice Gorsuch or Justice Kavanaugh was duty-bound to turn down a nomination to the Supreme Court out of a duty to avoid association with it. If anything, they had to know that there were voters who selected Mr. Trump in spite of other reservations precisely in order to see justices like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh selected.

Therefore, Mr. Trump’s veracity has nothing to do with them, in my mind. Regardless of whatever reservations anyone may have had about any of the justices now seated on the Supreme Court, they’re seated. It’s a done deal. I don’t think any of the justices have immediate plans to resign. I really really see no reason to believe any of them will be impeached, let alone that they will be the first justices in the history of the US to be removed. I don’t think any will allow partisan politics to interfere with their honest reading of the law, even if they have honest differences about how to read it.

On to the fall elections…or maybe just on to topics other than politics (and wouldn’t that be a relief?)

 

[Start]

My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes,” that was a wacky random thing to say.

That sounds serious and the cold war was occurring during his presidency.

 

[PetraG]

That sounds serious and the cold war was occurring during his presidency.

I remember when it happened. It was taken by the entire world as a very poor attempt at humor. Some thought it was no big deal, others thought it was well beneath the way a President of the United States should ever talk, but the Russians did not quake, let’s just say that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

PetraG:

And he is sworn in and for all practical purposes the point is moot.

Temporarily, anyhow.

If the Democrats were to gain a majority in next month election, Rep. Nadler and other would be leaders are committed to impeaching Justice Kavanaugh among others for the alleged gang rape parties and other sexual offenses.

Some of them may be so committed, but I don’t think you will get any real Democratic support for that, and certainly no Republican support. It’s not a serious possibility.

 

[HarryStotle]

I say no. I say as Catholics, we have to insist on the truth. Maybe I’m tilting at windmills, but I think the general public has an unprecedented ability to fact-check themselves without having to rely on a limited number of media sources. We have the internet, we have the Freedom of Information Act, we have ways to fact-check. We need to do it, and we need to resist the temptation to fear that defending the truth is too dangerous or impossible to even try.

No, actually, the general public’s “unprecedented ability to fact check themselves” is, itself, a lie based upon the supposed neutrality of the gatekeepers of information.

You say, “we have the internet,” which is true to some extent, but the internet is increasingly monitored and controlled to shut down information from sources that big tech companies like Google do not approve.

As Epstein and Robertson demonstrate, search engine manipulation can make a significant difference in elections, especially among those prone to trust search engine results.

We present evidence from five experiments in two countries suggesting the power and robustness of the search engine manipulation effect (SEME). Specifically, we show that (i) biased search rankings can shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20% or more, (ii) the shift can be much higher in some demographic groups, and (iii) such rankings can be masked so that people show no awareness of the manipulation. Knowing the proportion of undecided voters in a population who have Internet access, along with the pro- portion of those voters who can be influenced using SEME, allows one to calculate the win margin below which SEME might be able to determine an election outcome.
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/33/E4512.full.pdf?with-ds=yes

Google has so much as admitted that it is playing the role of the “Good Censor” in its self-lefteous attempt to maintain its very biased version of order and civility by cutting off free speech at the knees.

'THE GOOD CENSOR': Leaked Google Briefing Admits Abandonment of Free Speech for 'Safety And Civility'

An internal company briefing produced by Google and leaked exclusively to Breitbart News argues that due to a variety of factors, including the election of President Trump, the “American tradition” of free speech on the internet is no longer viable.

www.breitbart.com

So count me just a little skeptical when you claim we have unprecedented access to information on the Internet. What we really have is unprecedented access to what the executives at Google, Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook have determined to be the information that we as a society ought to be formed by. Hardly the same thing and hardly the truth.

 

[edwest]

That’s right. And a lot of what’s being posted here amounts to ‘trial by internet,’ so that’s not going to work or solve anything.

 

[PetraG]

No, actually, the general public’s “unprecedented ability to fact check themselves” is, itself, a lie based upon the supposed neutrality of the gatekeepers of information.

You say, “we have the internet,” which is true to some extent, but the internet is increasingly monitored and controlled to shut down information from sources that big tech companies like Google do not approve.

As Epstein and Robertson demonstrate, search engine manipulation can make a significant difference in elections, especially among those prone to trust search engine results.

No, I mean that when some reporter tells me what the President said in a speech, I can pull up a video and listen to to what he said (or more often, what he tweeted) for myself.

If you want to talk about skeptical fact-checking, though, I would like to note that fact-checking the President is extremely difficult because he says things like “everyone is saying” or “I hear that.” What everyone is that? Who did he hear it from? Why does he believe them? He rarely says where he gets his information. I’ve come to be very wary of things he says, though, because of the number of times that (a) he has his facts totally wrong or (b) he directly contradicts his previous statements.

For a guy who is upset about what he calls “fake news,” he sure says and posts a lot of things that turn out to be wrong, wrong, wrong. Some of it is so wrong, I know it is wrong when he puts it out there.

If what he says is written off as “truthful hyperbole,” though, or “that’s just Trump being Trump,” then the stampede is on. He has set his own bar for honesty and factual correctness very very low. When he complains he’s not treated fairly, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for him. He’s only been making the situation worse because he is so fast and loose with his own facts.

Again, though: That has nothing to do with Kavanaugh.
The Senate endorsed him, that is the only endorsement that counts, he is in, period.

 

[Augustinian]

If you want to talk about skeptical fact-checking, though, I would like to note that fact-checking the President is extremely difficult because he says things like “everyone is saying” or “I hear that.” What everyone is that? Who did he hear it from? Why does he believe them? He rarely says where he gets his information.

President Trump usually delivers Streams of Consciousness speeches which aren’t prepared or researched in advance. Sometimes the President doesn’t know right off the bat where he got the information.

 

[PetraG]

President Trump usually delivers Streams of Consciousness speeches which aren’t prepared or researched in advance. Sometimes the President doesn’t know right off the bat where he got the information.

Yet he stands in front of the world and says it, anyway.
He doesn’t research or prepare…why not? Does he think he has none of the responsibility that any other public servant has? His supporters hold others in public service to that standard. Why not him?
Considering how many times he has later been absolutely wrong, you’d think if he cared about truthfulness he would stop doing that, don’t you? At least, you’d think he would be far more merciful to other people who didn’t quite have their facts straight, no?
The first few times, it could be chalked up to inexperience. Now, I have to think he just does not care whether he has his facts straight or not. He doesn’t apologize. He doesn’t improve. He doesn’t keep himself or his Twitter account quiet prior to doing his research (or having someone trusted do it for him). I don’t know why anyone would expect me to think any differently.

Anyway–you guys have the last say, I think I’ve done too much to derail this thread from its intended topic, which has become a moot point.

 

[HarryStotle]

Again, though: That has nothing to do with Kavanaugh.
The Senate endorsed him, that is the only endorsement that counts, he is in, period.

I think you are missing the big picture here. Trump, for the most part, stayed out of the debate over Kavanaugh. What that demonstrated is that the MSM, Hollywood, the Dems, and the supposed progressivist culture molders were completely willing to unfairly attack and demonize – not Trump for being Trump – but even an ordinary, decent and benign human being, family man, and highly qualified and fair judge.

That demonstrated beyond any doubt that the beef the left has isn’t with Trump or his hyperbolic language, but that it is entirely consumed by its own political agenda and power, and that it will savage anyone who isn’t on board with it.

Its attack on Kavanaugh is an archetypal attack on a common sense understanding of justice, represented by Kavanaugh as a judge within that ordered system.

Their issue with Trump is actually a deception and facade. They sincerely believe that by scapegoating Trump for his foibles and apparent faults, they will unite the people and bring them on side by convincing them that Trump is the enemy of goodness. Yet what has been revealed in the attacks on Kavanaugh has been just the opposite – they are the enemies of true justice and the rule of law.

What the Kavanaugh episode has demonstrated beyond doubt is that the leftist issues with Trump are a ruse. Even with no Trump in the battle, the left is still insane in pursuit of its illegitimate ends.

What many people are seeing is that Trump has set himself up as a decoy willing to undergo vicious attack, but in the meantime he is accomplishing a great deal that benefits ordinary people all over the country.

By not even admitting that real good has been done, and even attacking Trump for the good that he has done, the leftists are revealing their real motivations, their severe lack of understanding of what is actually good for the country, and the less than desirable ends that they are truly attempting to achieve.

 

[edwest]

The Left understands what is ‘good’ for this country. Social stability is poison to them. Anarchy, revolution, the destruction of true beauty and goodness to be replaced by its exact opposite. It doesn’t matter which football team is in control, it doesn’t matter. “We’ll burn this country down if we have to !” (Late 1960s.) It’s the only life they know. Subvert - turn everything upside down. Movements that lead to no good solution, just more chaos. If they could absorb that chaos - they would use it. So here they are, again, creating divisions but no solutions. The game, they say, is rigged, and they’ll latch on to any victim anywhere as their ‘saviors,’ but they don’t want to save anybody. They just want the people’s trust. I’m not giving it to them.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Hillary Clinton: Democrats 'cannot be civil' with Republicans anymore

Hillary Clinton, in a television interview Tuesday, rejected the idea that Democrats should be “civil” with Republicans in the age of Donald Trump, embracing a more confrontational and aggressive political approach.

www.foxnews.com

They have come full circle apparently and are right back to “we’ll burn it down if we have to”. The whole party has been hijacked by a bunch of violent moonbats. I can’t see why any decent person would vote for people that think like this. And this type of thinking is exactly why they were willing to demonize kavanaugh so relentlessly, with no proof.

 

[HarryStotle]

Hillary Clinton: Democrats 'cannot be civil' with Republicans anymore | Fox News

They have come full circle apparently and are right back to “we’ll burn it down if we have to”. The whole party has been hijacked by a bunch of violent moonbats. I can’t see why any decent person would vote for people that think like this. And this type of thinking is exactly why they were willing to demonize kavanaugh so relentlessly, with no proof.

The progressive left may be headed towards a cliff.

Study here…

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...b718/1539107467397/hidden_tribes_report-2.pdf

 

[1cthlctrth]

The Left believes in achieving their agenda at ANY cost. Judge Kavanaugh and his family are just collateral damage to them.

 

[1cthlctrth]

And NBC aired Swetnick even though they had information contradicting her original claims.

 

[ConstantLearner]

If the Democrats were to gain a majority in next month election, Rep. Nadler and other would be leaders are committed to impeaching Justice Kavanaugh among others for the alleged gang rape parties and other sexual offenses.

That would be impossible to prove. I don’t believe any Democrat would concern himself or herself with it. Frankly, I don’t believe Kavanaugh guilty of gang rape, and I don’t believe Ford, and I don’t even like Kavanaugh. But he’s a justice now, and I think the Democrats, should they gain control, know there are far more important issues to focus on.

 

[ConstantLearner]

The Left understands what is ‘good’ for this country. Social stability is poison to them. Anarchy, revolution, the destruction of true beauty and goodness to be replaced by its exact opposite. It doesn’t matter which football team is in control, it doesn’t matter. “We’ll burn this country down if we have to !” (Late 1960s.) It’s the only life they know. Subvert - turn everything upside down. Movements that lead to no good solution, just more chaos. If they could absorb that chaos - they would use it. So here they are, again, creating divisions but no solutions. The game, they say, is rigged, and they’ll latch on to any victim anywhere as their ‘saviors,’ but they don’t want to save anybody. They just want the people’s trust. I’m not giving it to them.

That sounds exactly like Trump’s supporters.

 

[Augustinian]

That would be impossible to prove. I don’t believe any Democrat would concern himself or herself with it.

A lot of Democrats are already pushing for it, CL.

If the Democrats win the House, there will be at minimum lots of time involved in investigating everyone and quite possibly impeachments. What else will they have to do? A Democratic controlled House isn’t going to be that much interested in helping President Trump get legislation through.

Even if Kavanaugh confirmed to Supreme Court, fight over sex assault allegations unlikely to end

If Democrats get control of Congress, they could reopen an investigation – and possibly remove Kavanaugh from the court.

www.usatoday.com

 

[ConstantLearner]

Political hype. The stuff we hear from both right and left before an election. Like Mexico paying for a wall. Mexico’s not paying, and Kavanaugh’s not going to be impeached.

Of course a Democratic House would not be interested in Trump’s legislation. Were the Repubs interested in Merrick Garland? Par for the course, on both sides.