Jump to content

Captainant

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    14668
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    6

Posts posted by Captainant

  1. 1 minute ago, Telegraph_it said:

    Then it would not be arbitrary right? 

    The deadline itself is an arbitrary date. There is no process or legislative requirement to confirm kavanaugh this month. Their desire to confirm him ASAP is not arbitrary, and is partially outlined by my previous post.

  2. 14 minutes ago, Telegraph_it said:

    I won't pretend to think that you do not know your answer to the second quote. GOP have set themselves a deadline before midterms and this last minute accusation, which can derail this nominee, looks to extend it beyond November. Also, as another poster has already pointed out to say NOTHING has been investigated is probably not accurate.

    They set an absolutely arbitrary deadline, based on a fear of losing the house senate and losing their chance to jam a justice through the nomination process. It's the high of hypocrisy to say that there's no time to investigate when the GOP demanded at least a year to fully vet Obama's nominee and wouldn't even meet him in their private office(s).

  3. Just now, Chrispy said:

    Again, I’m forced to tautology, but safety wasn’t her only consideration. I’m curious to see the terms and that’s reasonable. 

    Maybe you'd be less forced to tautology if you didn't consistently frame things in the most misleading way possible. It's fair to say you'd like to hear her conditions and then decide. It's not fair to frame that as "reread the statement, she's asking for much more than that" and shift the conversation to how unreasonable she's being, when she has a valid and tangible danger to her well-being.

  4. Also worth noting: the GOP holds all the cards here. If they think she's lying or her friends are lying, they have all the subpoena power to test the veracity of their claims. It's strange that they're doing absolutely NOTHING to investigate the claims and to investigate previous perjury before the SJC.

  5. 1 minute ago, Telegraph_it said:

    Now that we know she faced sexual assault I am not sure what else needs to be discussed. Kavanaugh needs to remove himself from consideration and let the FBI do investigation #7. 

    Just to let you know, I'm negging you not because I disagree with your statement (which I do, btw), but because you're making such a lazy fucking argument and dismissing everything I said.

  6. Just now, Chrispy said:

    No, it says “fair terms” and I’m curious what that means. You’re being unnecessarily argumentative.

    No, you're being intentionally obtuse in saying " that wasn’t her only consideration", making it sound like she's being unreasonable, when she's receiving death threats and getting doxxed and all of conservative media is painting her as some political zealot. It's not like people's homes have been burned down when credibly accusing prominent GOP politicians or anything right? 

    I'm not being argumentative, it's that I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt when you consistently make misleading statements about a woman who faced sexual assault. 

  7. 1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

    You need to read her attorney’s statement again, that wasn’t her only consideration. 

     

    What' that the hearing be fair and safe, and not be arbitrarily on Monday? That's really the only requests that I see from the email. If that's unreasonable to you, then wow.

  8. Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    As I've said before, it would have really helped if Kavanaugh was more credible than what was put on display during the confirmation hearings. 

    yeah, his lies and intentionally misleading answers under oath are really becoming an issue now that it's a s/he said

  9. Just now, Stros said:


    She is a hero to the left. She will get a high paying job win or lose from the left. She will be a rockstar to the left if it crushes Kavanaugh.

    She is already a career scientist and academic and is squarely NOT in politics. The fact that you think she's doing this as a career play is a testament to just how caustically cynical you are about this and how blinded you are by your biases.

  10. 1 minute ago, realgreggym said:

    Wet dream was probably a poor choice of words.. I agree. The problem is that I don't know the facts and I am not sure anyone else does. . The other concern is the questionable timing, the fact that she claims to want to stay anonymous and yet took a polygraph and then hired a far left wing anti Trump attorney that has connections to Soros. And yet this intelligent woman thought that she could stay anonymous. I believe until proven otherwise that this is just another setup just like Thomas because dems lost elections and this is their only option left.

    If it can be proven otherwise, I'll listen... a little.

    So all of what you've said is EXACTLY why the Federal Bureau of Investigation should probably take a look at these allegations. It's a FELONY to lie to the FBI, just ask the majority of trump's senior campaign staff, so why would she be lying and begging for a felony? Why is it out of the question for the FBI to investigate this?

  11. 16 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

    He lumped the criminal justice and law enforcement systems together and collectively called them “the new Jim Crow”.  

    The headline is oversimplified and meant to be sensational, but the meaning was there. 

    I have to admit I thought he’d be a slicker speaker. When asked about the anthem and kneeling, “No it’s not disrespectful”.  Really? Of course it is. That’s the point. That’s what draws attention to it. That’s what makes it a good protest.

    That clip sounds bad on Tv.

    That clip sounds bad on TV if you're watching the fox news edit of beto instead of the footage from events. You're cherry picking sections from overall statements that put him in the worst light possible and listening only to your biases. "The headline was oversimplified but the meaning was there"? Fucking cmon, that's just lazy.

  12. 10 minutes ago, Amobie said:

    So it looks like that facebook post has been taken down after people started pointing out that it contradicted Ford's account in several areas.  Most notably that Ford claims the incident happened during the Summer and that facebook post recalled that it was the "talk of the school" for weeks after it happened.

    I mean since we're all speculating wildly in here, it's not unreasonable for something to happen in the summer and have people talking about it for weeks into the school year. 

    • Like 1
  13. 1 hour ago, Chrispy said:

    I talked to him yesterday, he was banned twice. 

    He was banned for posting 

    "Go stick up a dick up your ass faggot"

    and 

    "Im sure your parents are real proud of you ending the family lineage by deciding to play with other guys dicks for fun. What an accomplishment. Enjoy being a genetic dead end while you bite pillows for all the guys plowing you."

    Go figure, right?

  14. 2 hours ago, immamac said:

    P.S. Sorry about the audio quality we dont have a mic boom yet

    Hooray! Those thuds and finger drums on someone's desk were rough lol. Also, may want to do a compression/normalization pass on each person's audio - Bob went from quiet to fucking loud in a couple of places. Great podcast otherwise, loving how absurdly niche it is lol

  15. 7 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

    How confirmation process resembles a trial.

    1. Testimony from witnesses under oath

    2. “Evidence” submitted to the committee

    3. Purpose - Making a decision on the qualification of the nominee based on the 1st 2 items. 

    Need I say more?

    could you point out at which point the "defendant" in your analogy is facing deprivation of rights and liberties as a result of the confirmation process? Oh, he isn't? Guess it isn't a fucking trial then.

  16. 1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

    I agree with some of what you’re saying, but it’s a serious charge and requires serious evidence. You’re supposed to prove guilt, not the other way around. 

    This. is. not. a. criminal. proceeding. You are applying a standard that is completely irrelevant to a confirmation hearing. He isn't being threatened with a loss of liberty or freedoms. 

×
×
  • Create New...