• Kavanaugh allegedly vandalized a classmate's friend's truck while drunk in 1986
    80 replies, posted
As far as I can tell, Resonant, your argument is, in it's entirety; "You can't judge a man for what he's done wrong in his life, if you do, someone may do so against people you like one day". This is so pathetic it hurts. Frankly, I will, with a moments notice, drop any rapist, murderer, abuser, or encourager of either of those things without a look back. And I have to ask you, why do you think we shouldn't? The only reason so far that anyone I know has argued this argument, Resonant, is because they've done bad things in their past, and don't want that used against them. Is this the case for you as well?
Context Fucking Context. Another situation where i can view this as a character assassination is when people dug up James Gunn's terrible jokes on twitter. Yet he had a perfect explanation of why he did those jokes and have obviously stopped doing them and has public apologized about his behavior. And has said he has become a better individual since then. Kavanaugh on the otherhand fervently denies anything that he did while he was younger. From Drinking, Partying, being reckless, etc. Yet there is countless evidence that state otherwise. I wouldn't give a flying fuck if Kavanaugh totaled a car when he was younger if he acknowledged it and learned his lesson. Meanwhile the real Kavanaugh denies that it happens, states that he wasn't reckless, and also states that he has never drank heavily.
Quite happy to. "You" are conducting an investigation into Kavanaugh regarding the sexual assault claims and the claims of his character surrounding the issue which he has testified under oath against. Proving that he has falsely testified under oath is absolutely your best bet of winning. Unfortunately the system is entirely corrupted and rigged against you, so you have had to resort to anecdotal evidence from people with quite possibly the best memory on the planet accurately depicting the times he got too drunk, belligerent and "possibly criminal." I would be absolutely fine if this was going to the investigation teams, and indeed to court. But it's being paraded around on a fucking blimp to the general public to discredit him (which is certainly working) and the party and administration for it. I'm not saying you won't find anything, you will, in fact you are almost guaranteed to. I can't wait to see more of it in the future when candidates are running for presidency and school mates are climbing out of the woodwork to get their spot on TV and ruin some rich politicians career no matter if they mean well or not. I can't wait.
Oh yay. False. We witnessed a man perjur himself while in a job interview for the highest court in the land, where he will judge others for the rest of his life. No one who perjurs themselves should be on the SCOTUS. There is no "Winning", anymore. He is on the court. He will impact the future of the rest of the nation without a doubt, and that cannot be stopped at this point. The more dirt being uncovered is the result of more time having passed with his name in the media. Under literally any other situation, "Anecdotal" evidence is all that some cases have to go on. Are you saying in cases where it's difficult to prove, that victims are to be told they're wrong, lying, or "Should have come out 30 years ago"? This is EXACTLY what happened here, and what happened with Anita Hill. You need to learn some fucking history. So, under a period of time of extreme corruption, your solution to that is "Let it happen". Okay. I won't even try and argue why that's stupid as fuck. It's self apparent. The fact you dismiss some one remembering an incident from 30 years ago "As best memory ever" is proof to me, that you don't really understand what it's like to be wronged. You don't forget always forget that shit. You seem to be implying even a few years down the line, there'd be no reason to remember events that occured to you, let alone who they happened with or where. This is patently absurd. Do you really think that by allowing the events of someone past to matter in what we allow them to do in the future, that we doom ourselves? To me, it literally sounds like you're just afraid that you did something bad, and it'll be used against you one day. If that's the case, own up to your shit. If it's not, why are you against peoples actions being what we use to evaluate them? What should we evaluate people on, if not their actual actions?
You are entirely, I'm starting to think intentionally missing my main point. I have no issues dragging up the past on people in a court of law, it's what it's there for, it's what investigations are there for. Your demeanor surrounding it, the circus that is ongoing. You seem to be entirely forgetting what a court of law is for and as soon as you hear a bit of anecdotal evidence you are treating it as fact, in this day and age of all times to affirm your own beliefs. I'm not for a moment saying you're wrong in this, it's the fact this is being paraded around as fact before being fully and properly checked as genuine impartial evidence that I have an issue with, and I've made that quite fucking clear already. Just because you are most likely right, does not mean that this should be going down like this, it's a fucking frenzy and it's giving you guys a really poor image that the media is grasping onto these things and parading them around before they are evaluated and defended.
I mean with normal people if you find out that they did something particularly bad in the past, they usually express some sort of shame about the act. Which doesn't happen with trump and seemingly everyone in his orbit, because they have no shame. And yeah if your rulings or the laws you right will potentially affect a entire nation of people I think you should be held to a pretty high standard! These aren't private citizens.
But you brought up why this cannot be verified as genuine, because an investigation will not happen because of corruption. Your response to this is "Let it happen, and let them empower themeslves to hell and back". This is patently absurd logic that has no grounds for support. Blame the administration that allowed this to happen, that created this as a norm. A confirmed liar, who literally lied to congress and behaved like a child is now one of the highest ranking members of the United States Government. He will be for life. An avowed liar, who was caught in lies, is in power to judge the nation for the rest of his life. If you're worried about a "really poor image", than you started at the wrong stage of this argument. You're literally saying "DO NOTHING, SAY NOTHING, BE SILENT AND ABIDE" and I can't tolerate it. It's bullshit.
The White House did not allow for a proper investigation so what alternative do we have?
If Democrats win a majority in the House of Representatives they can subpoena Mark Judge and Brett's old friends. Of course Republicans would get pissed while also saying that the Benghazi investigations were okay.
THIS is the discussion you should be having. A very fucking serious one at that, this trial is absolutely nothing compared to this injustice and after all this administration has done to see the public boil down to pointing at evidence and screaming at deaf ears is disappointing. You are not being listened to, evidence in court is being dismissed and powers of the investigation is being limited, instead of addressing this with the appropriate response the media and energy are being focused onto Kavanacunt and his antics which is a much lesser problem than the former. You are certainly not living in a functioning democracy anymore, you are practically living in an active party wide dictatorship. Priorities people.
Holy fuck dude you are so condescending it's insane We are having that discussion. The administration is ignoring it, and has no reason to do anything else. You keep acting like the information coming out against Brett is driven by partisan lines, and media antics. It's literally the discussion, the PEOPLE want to fucking have.
it's an unpopular opinion but I dont think lying to congress is wrong nor should it be a crime.
Why should we give the benefit of the doubt to someone with a spotty track record and lied to congress
yes cause clearly the real victim here is the Suspect /s
I feel you're just hung up on one erroneous element of this, and you refuse to examine it any further. I don't believe there is enough evidence to think that Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist. I do believe that he lied to congress. Because that is demonstrable. I do believe he is unfit for SCOTUS, or to be a judge period as does the American BAR association, as well as 1200+ legal professors. NOT because of any allegations against him. Because of his own method of conduct, and behaviour. You refuse to examine this at all in like, 6 threads and as low as your reputation is going to go, you really should just for you own sake, examine new data.
and also his behavior of being extremely inconsistent and constantly changing the subject/answer/story makes whatever the hell he says questionable and debatable. With his godawful senate hearing. Its not doubt people are willing to not believe him when he denies shit that happens. Cause he constantly tries to change the subject, avoid answering questions, and constantly dodges questions. You know, like someone who lies or is caught.
Nobody's going to deny that that was a load of horseshit. It just doesn't matter anymore because he has nothing to do with politics anymore.
Yet everyone i know on FB talked about him constantly when this shit went down. "Everyone complaining about Kavanaugh but WHAT ABOUT BILL?"
It would be grounds enough to investigate the accusations fully, which has not happened in the Kavanaugh case.
What motivations do you think the accusers have? I don't exactly think Ford is trying to lose her job and professional credibility by laying false accusations on a public figure. We have every reason to tentatively believe her.
Fun Fact: Al Franken was on the senate judiciary committee that oversaw Kavanaugh's nomination, before his own allegations popped up. The party has changed since Clinton, if you haven't noticed.
Because even before considering Kavanaugh's incredibly spotty record, almost nobody lies about rape other than people with mental disorders and/or an existing history of frequent criminal activity. Don't make me fucking post the statistics and the abundant research done on this subject, because they're just a google click away if you actually give a damn.
In the absence of evidence or a proper investigation, we're left to judge people on the content of their character.
But, as mentioned by others already, it goes against Kavanaugh's claim that he was an absolute boy scout in his younger days (high school through law school), and if he's lying about that, what else is he lying about? (Turns out, a lot even if you only consider his adult career)
The devil's threesome.
Personally, some minor damage done to a car in a drunken state in high school years, I could give less of a shit about, if this were removed from the current context. I don't think people should always be dragged down by minor mistakes they have done in the past, especially their youth, always holding people accountable to things they have done or said years or even decades ago sucks. They should be room for everyone to improve, to be forgiven, to move on. BUT here comes the other side, the things Kavanaugh did are trully and utterly disqualifying, given his temperament, his partisian hackery, the perjury under oath and the fact that this story even contradicts statement he's made before congress. Even if you don't believe Dr. Fords testimony, which you honestly should. He should have never been even nominated for SCOTUS.
You're shitposting at this point with how much you repeat this. In order for him to be convicted of the crime, there needs to be more evidence, yes. But in order for him to not be on the Supreme Court, reasonable suspicion should be enough. There's plenty of evidence such as Ford's testimony matching reality, even matching Kavanaugh's calendar, and Kavanaugh's statements not matching reality, which warrants suspecting that he did it. And since there was no proper investigation, we're left to try and figure it out unofficially. This car vandalism is relevant because it supports the idea that Kavanaugh lied about his drinking, which in turn damages his credibility and makes it more likely that he has something to hide.
Borrowing a page from @Borealis https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/133737/e2569486-0735-446a-a84a-25e24dca5540/image.png Source: The Code of Conduct for United States Judges, uscourts.gov
wow do you think he should go to jail for farting??? /S
There's humor to be found in the fact that this is something like the third thread where Jouska is arguing the same standpoint that nobody's even talking about.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.