Jump to content
Required Reading for any Longhorn ×

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 17.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Yuk
Yuk

No, you guys went Republican to ethnonationalist.

Bozo_Casanova
Bozo_Casanova

When Georgetown Prep sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're

TexArcher
TexArcher

In 2016 I was a moderate.  Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, but not quite a libertarian.  I would have considered voting for Kasich had he won the nomination. Now?  I will probably never

sachick

sachick 1189

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Well, some have recanted, so I’m unclear on how many still remain. I would have to do some research on the topic for sure, it hasn’t been on my radar. 

Oh just fuck off. How many accusations does it take to make them believable? 5+ and you might start to believe the women? 10+ to really make you sure he's capable of it? You probably give Cosby the benefit of the doubt too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
realgreggym

realgreggym 837

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Then he should have no problem testifying under oath.

 

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, Anastasis, a woman is telling you what a woman's experience is. Make sure you tell her how wrong she is about it as quickly as possible and how it's actually STILL their fault, just for a different reason.

lol

There have been numerous women coming forward to talk about their rape or attempted rape. Every one has said when something that traumatic happens. you remember every detail. Every single detail., This woman cant seem to remember very much and thats why many doubt her story. And now there are approximately 200 hundred women that have come forward in support of Kavanaugh. He has been in the public eye for decades and not once has it been reported that any woman came forward on anything regarding Kavanaugh.

The only thing missing is a coke can with a pubic hair. 

BTW, there is news coming out and for the sake of the board libs, I hope its fake. Supposedly the reason Feinstein with held this letter is because she received a similar one from the same woman during the Gorsuch hearings. Again, for the libs sake I hope its fake.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GHOSTUSER

GHOSTUSER 361

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

How does the confirmation process in any way resemble a trial?   Kavanaugh is at no risk of being locked up, fined, enjoined, or any other form of government compulsion.   Unlike our constitutional rights, which are at issue in a trial, it is not Kavanagh's right to be on the Supreme Court.   The rules are all self-imposed by the Senate, not statute or the Constitution.   With Garland, the Senate didn't even give him a hearing, much less a vote!   By your logic, I suppose, Garland was effectively given life in prison without a trial? 

Senators are free to vote against Kavanaugh simply because they think he's a schmuck.   It's a political process that is left for the voters to resolve in evaluating their Senators.    That said, the populace generally wants a reasonable evaluation of nominees.   My personal standard would be something along the lines of, is there a substantial likelihood, based on the evidence, that he did this?  If so, I'd move on to another nominee, even if I'm not convinced of his guilt.

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sachick

sachick 1189

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, realgreggym said:

 

There have been numerous women coming forward to talk about their rape or attempted rape. Every one has said when something that traumatic happens. you remember every detail. Every single detail., This woman cant seem to remember very much and thats why many doubt her story. And now there are approximately 200 hundred women that have come forward in support of Kavanaugh. He has been in the public eye for decades and not once has it been reported that any woman came forward on anything regarding Kavanaugh.

The only thing missing is a coke can with a pubic hair. 

BTW, there is news coming out and for the sake of the board libs, I hope its fake. Supposedly the reason Feinstein with held this letter is because she received a similar one from the same woman during the Gorsuch hearings. Again, for the libs sake I hope its fake.

Not true. Everyone handles trauma different. Some do remember every detail and some completely block it out. Their mind can't handle it so they repress it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13226

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, realgreggym said:

Every one has said when something that traumatic happens. you remember every detail. Every single detail.

lol no

According to McLaughlin, if the brain registers an overwhelming trauma, then it can essentially block that memory in a process called dissociation -- or detachment from reality. "The brain will attempt to protect itself," she added.

Dissociation causes a lack of connection in a person's thoughts, memory and/or sense of identity and it's extremely common to experience a case of mild dissociation. For example, if you've recently gotten "lost" in a book or daydreamed at work, then you've experienced a common form of mild dissociation.

LIB DOCTORS AND COMMIE SCIENTISTS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
realgreggym

realgreggym 837

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

He didn't "have" to do anything. He was primaried because he didn't keep his constituents happy. That's how the system is intended to work.

He had to run as an independent because the dems were mad at him if I remember correctly for something he said. and dem leadership picked a different dem candidate. His constituents still elected him back to the senate. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46351

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

lol no

According to McLaughlin, if the brain registers an overwhelming trauma, then it can essentially block that memory in a process called dissociation -- or detachment from reality. "The brain will attempt to protect itself," she added.

Dissociation causes a lack of connection in a person's thoughts, memory and/or sense of identity and it's extremely common to experience a case of mild dissociation. For example, if you've recently gotten "lost" in a book or daydreamed at work, then you've experienced a common form of mild dissociation.

LIB DOCTORS AND COMMIE SCIENTISTS!

No way, dude.  "Everyone" has said it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

A quick google search told me a few, but I would have to research those claims as I’m not up to date on those. 

OK, what are those names?  I'm not turning up any in a Google search.  That said, if you such little familiarity with the allegations, how have you reached the conclusion that Trump didn't sexually assault those women? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
realgreggym

realgreggym 837

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

lol no

According to McLaughlin, if the brain registers an overwhelming trauma, then it can essentially block that memory in a process called dissociation -- or detachment from reality. "The brain will attempt to protect itself," she added.

Dissociation causes a lack of connection in a person's thoughts, memory and/or sense of identity and it's extremely common to experience a case of mild dissociation. For example, if you've recently gotten "lost" in a book or daydreamed at work, then you've experienced a common form of mild dissociation.

LIB DOCTORS AND COMMIE SCIENTISTS!

You are doing exactly what you accused another poster of doing. Women who were either raped or there was an attempted rape said they remember every detail and yet you post something that someone else says. Good job. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46351

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

The Garland situation was hardball politics that’s going to bite the GOP in the ass in the future. he got fucked over. There is no parallel to this when it comes to being ACCUSED OF ATTEMPTED RAPE.

So . . . it would be OK if it were just "hardball politics", but the fact that he is being implicated in a serious crime makes it an outrageous act of legislative stonewalling?

THAT'S where you going with this?  Step back and think that over.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
conVINCEd

conVINCEd 21474

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, sachick said:

Oh just fuck off. How many accusations does it take to make them believable? 5+ and you might start to believe the women? 10+ to really make you sure he's capable of it? You probably give Cosby the benefit of the doubt too.

Cosby's black, no benefit of doubt.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27878

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chrispy

Chrispy 132

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, sachick said:

Oh just fuck off. How many accusations does it take to make them believable? 5+ and you might start to believe the women? 10+ to really make you sure he's capable of it? You probably give Cosby the benefit of the doubt too.

It seems you’re advocating the position that all accusers are telling the truth, that’s just not the way it works. 10+ is a horrible number to have next to your name and makes me lean towards some impropriety.

Edited by Chrispy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chrispy

Chrispy 132

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

OK, what are those names?  I'm not turning up any in a Google search.  That said, if you such little familiarity with the allegations, how have you reached the conclusion that Trump didn't sexually assault those women? 

No, you said 12 plus, which I feel strains credulity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

He wouldn't have been if he just decided to stay. He could have left it to the voters of Minnesota. He chose not to.

Oh well.

He had to resign and he did it for the best interests of the party and the country. 

However, it doesn't excuse the knee jerk reaction from people like Gillibrand who led the charge calling for his immediate resignation and the subsequent pile on of other Senators without any type of review or investigation. 

If the Democrats are as concerned with Kavanaugh as they were with Franken, they should be screaming from the rooftops for his nomination to be withdrawn. 

But no, that wouldn't play well politically.  They're hypocrites too. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
6 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?

The purpose you cite has no similarity to a trial.   I don't know why you are putting evidence in quotes; the rules of evidence in a courtroom don't apply at all in a hearing, where the senate can ask for whatever it wants.  It's not "evidence" akin to a courtroom proceeding at all.   And witnesses need not be under oath in the Senate.   That they sometimes are doesn't make it a trial.  That's a superficial similarity at best.    Meanwhile, you haven't addressed any of the substantial distinctions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
conVINCEd

conVINCEd 21474

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Clarence Thomas is black.

I'm a little rusty on Thomas.  He was accused of inappropriate advances and touching?  Nothing beyond that, right?  I'm not in any way defending that, but that's not in the same realm as Cosby.  He was also a republican in a political environment, so go team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18993

Posted
Posted
Just now, conVINCEd said:

I'm a little rusty on Thomas.  He was accused of inappropriate advances and touching?  Nothing beyond that, right?  I'm not in any way defending that, but that's not in the same realm as Cosby.  He was also a republican in a political environment, so go team.

I don't think there were accusations of touching.

Just being gross at work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46351

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, conVINCEd said:

I'm a little rusty on Thomas.  He was accused of inappropriate advances and touching?  Nothing beyond that, right?  I'm not in any way defending that, but that's not in the same realm as Cosby.  He was also a republican in a political environment, so go team.

Oh, I got your point, I was just being pedantic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

He had to resign and he did it for the best interests of the party and the country. 

However, it doesn't excuse the knee jerk reaction from people like Gillibrand who led the charge calling for his immediate resignation and the subsequent pile on of other Senators without any type of review or investigation. 

If the Democrats are as concerned with Kavanaugh as they were with Franken, they should be screaming from the rooftops for his nomination to be withdrawn. 

But no, that wouldn't play well politically.  They're hypocrites too. 

 

Gillibrand's reaction was not knee-jerk.  She didn't call on him to resign until weeks after the initial groping photo, after multiple other women accused him of groping them during photo-ops, and finally a politico story dropped saying that he tried to forcibly kiss a Democratic aide. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23471

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, sachick said:

Even if she had spoken up, would she have been believed? She would have been blamed for drinking and putting herself in a situation where this could happen. Good girls shouldn't be at parties with boys and shouldn't be drink at these parties with the boys and if you flirted with the boy, then you just asked for it. At 16 she was scared and I don't blame her. Even now when she did say something it's a bunch of excuses of what she should have done and then she's being harassed and doxxed online.  We didn't talk about these things back then. Hopefully with the me too movement more women will speak up when this happens and not be intimidated into silence.

In 1982, I  agree it may have played out that way. Today, I would like to think it's a different environment, with challenges that no doubt remain.  However, in the context of the current discussion re: Kavanaugh, that silence and the (to this point) lack of contemporary corroboration of any of the events of her allegation is pretty pivotal to the situation.  I didn't in any way intend to dismiss the point you were making, just that in this specific case any type of contemporary report of the assault, whether believed at the time or not, would be sufficient to close the case on his confirmation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13226

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, realgreggym said:

You are doing exactly what you accused another poster of doing. Women who were either raped or there was an attempted rape said they remember every detail and yet you post something that someone else says. Good job. 

You didn't quote anyone at all. You made it up.

4 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Something happened, that’s too much smoke.

I can't believe you're tarnishing a man's reputation and career on so little evidence!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13226

Posted
Posted
Just now, Anastasis said:

However, in the context of the current discussion re: Kavanaugh, that silence and the (to this point) lack of contemporary corroboration of any of the events of her allegation is pretty pivotal to the situation.

To whom?

This is the point. There is no actual reason that the lack of a contemporary report should matter. No one who is challenging her account now is doing so in good faith. Yet here you are, trying to pretend that bad faith arguments are actually good faith arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chrispy

Chrispy 132

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

You didn't quote anyone at all. You made it up.

I can't believe you're tarnishing a man's reputation and career on so little evidence!

A billionaire is going to be the subject of many frivolous allegations, but 20 is a lot to defend. Kavanaugh has 1, so the situations couldn’t be more different. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Gillibrand's reaction was not knee-jerk.  She didn't call on him to resign until weeks after the initial groping photo, after multiple other women accused him of groping them during photo-ops, and finally a politico story dropped saying that he tried to forcibly kiss a Democratic aide. 

It was knee jerk because she didn’t give Franken any kind of due process. She just assumed all the allegations were true and that photo was bullshit. 

I’ll admit Franken was probably guilty of inappropriate behavior but I have a hard time believing he’s some sort of serial sexual predator.   I would have liked to heard more from the accusers and Franken’s response.  Which is precisely what Kavanaugh is getting.  Except with Kavanaugh, he’s being appointed to a lifetime position in one of the highest offices in the country.  The voters will have zero say to remove him once he’s confirmed.  

And Gillibrand wasn’t running Franken off because it was the right thing to do.  She was doing it to score her own political points.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18993

Posted
Posted
Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It was knee jerk because she didn’t give Franken any kind of due process. She just assumed all the allegations were true and that photo was bullshit. 

I’ll admit Franken was probably guilty of inappropriate behavior but I have a hard time believing he’s some sort of serial sexual predator.   I would have liked to heard more from the accusers and Franken’s response.  Which is precisely what Kavanaugh is getting.  Except with Kavanaugh, he’s being appointed to a lifetime position in one of the highest offices in the country.  The voters will have zero say to remove him once he’s confirmed.  

And Gillibrand wasn’t running Franken off because it was the right thing to do.  She was doing it to score her own political points.  

Duh. It's politics. Al Franken made the decision to cut and run. Kirsten Gillibrand didn't owe him shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...