Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[retread 2951]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I got it in post 12562.

My dumb ass can't figure out how to quote quotes.

 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

44 minutes ago, retread said:

 

Let me retort with another excellent WSJ article. They’ve been killing it. Funny how the WSJ commenters, who I think represent the views of the silent majority of this country far better than this slanted board, have a very different view of things with regards to this farce. Dare I say I’m in the mainstream over there.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-much-politics-in-a-supreme-court-justice-1538405660?tesla=y&mod=article_inline

How Much Politics in a Supreme Court Justice?

Judges aren’t quite as divorced from the messy world of politics as it might seem

Gerald F. SeibOct. 1, 2018 10:54 a.m. ET

Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Supreme Court associate justice nominee, during last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington. Photo: Michael Reynolds/Press Pool

By

Gerald F. Seib

President Dwight Eisenhower was presented with a sudden and unexpected opening on the Supreme Court in 1953, when Chief Justice Fred Vinson died. To fill the slot, he nominated a thoroughly political man with no prior judicial experience: Earl Warren, the governor of California and a former Republican presidential candidate.

Mr. Warren was confirmed by a voice vote in the Senate and joined a court heavy with similarly political figures. It contained at that point three former U.S. senators and two justices who had served as attorney general for the president who appointed him.

The precedent is relevant today because of the roaring controversy over the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, which hangs in the balance this week. That nomination was put into peril initially by charges Mr. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a young woman when both were teens.

But after one of the most dramatic days of Senate testimony in recent times last week, the nomination now also is clouded by charges that Mr. Kavanaugh, in emotionally defending himself, showed that he is both too political in background, and lacking the kind of even-tempered demeanor expected of judges.

The sexual-assault accusation is being sorted out—at least to some extent—by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yet the other assertions are, in some ways, even harder to resolve, because they go to a broader question without a clear answer: What kind of person does the country want as a Supreme Court justice?

The political question is particularly tricky. In the past, a political background was considered fine, perhaps even desirable. Today, it is seen as a questionable attribute.

Senators to Watch on Brett Kavanaugh’s Confirmation Vote

An FBI investigation into allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh may decide the fate of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. WSJ’s Shelby Holliday looks at key Senators to watch leading up to the confirmation vote. Photo: Getty Images

Senators from both parties proclaim they want fair and impartial figures who bring no political agenda to the court. In fact, that is somewhere between misleading and a lie; both sides actually want predictable judges, not impartial ones.

Republicans and conservatives expect their nominees to defend conservative programs and ideas. Indeed, that expectation formed the entire basis for the support many conservatives gave President Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Similarly, liberal Democrats want liberal judges, and they expect Democratic Senators to do everything in their power to block conservative appointments. That forms a large part of the pitch some Democratic activists are making to turn out supporters in key Senate races this fall.

These expectations actually are rational considering the questions the country now expects the Supreme Court to decide. A deeply polarized political system can’t bring itself to fully resolve burning social questions—abortion, same-sex marriage, gun rights—so it relies on the courts to do the job. The drawing of congressional districts has become so blatantly political the only way to reverse the process is to look to the courts.

And, of course, the country turned to the Supreme Court to settle the entire 2000 presidential election, because the state of Florida couldn’t figure out who really won there. If the political part of the system worked better, the court wouldn’t have to do so much.

So it’s no surprise the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court justices have become more partisan and divisive. Yet within this trend lies a ticking time bomb for society: Relying on unelected figures who don’t answer to voters to resolve the most emotionally charged social issues strains the democratic process.

Partly because of such pressures, presidents these days are more likely to pick justices who have prior experience as judges, and in some cases experience only in the legal and judicial spheres.

Certainly that makes today’s justices less political than were some of their predecessors. But the image also is a bit misleading, because judges aren’t quite as divorced from the messy world of politics as it might seem. Justice Elena Kagan, for example, worked in the Clinton White House, not only in the counsel’s office but in the domestic policy shop. Justice Clarence Thomas worked for a Republican Senator and had two jobs in the Reagan administration.

Into this picture walks Mr. Kavanaugh. Though it was less discussed initially, his political background always was one reason his nomination engendered such passionate Democratic opposition. He worked for independent counsel Ken Starr in investigating President Bill Clinton and his inner circle; he was part of the legal team for President George W. Bush fighting out that 2000 election controversy in Florida; later he was a top White House aide to Mr. Bush.

Mr. Kavanaugh himself, though, did the most to draw attention to his own political background by angrily proclaiming during his testimony that the opposition to him was a “political hit” born in part of “revenge on behalf of the Clintons.”

Now, that passage is returning to haunt him. In the sorting out, perhaps the country can finally decide how much politics it wants in a judicial background.

Write to Gerald F. Seib at jerry.seib@wsj.com

 

Edited October 1, 2018 by Iconoclast Texan

[Chad Fuck 17501]

"Come.  Look at these people I agree with agree with me."

 

[retread 2951]

Quote

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has attempted to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story.

The texts also demonstrate that Kavanaugh and Ramirez were more socially connected than previously understood and that Ramirez was uncomfortable around Kavanaugh when they saw each other at a wedding 10 years after they graduated. Berchem's efforts also show that some potential witnesses have been unable to get important information through to the FBI.

 

Edited October 1, 2018 by retread

[Chrispy 132]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I'm like 6+ breeds.  As is just about anybody who isn't FOB within a generation or two.  It's called being American.  

Yeah, I usually write Heinz 57 when they ask for race. 

[Fozzz 152]

Quote

Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that the first time he heard of his former Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez’s allegation that he exposed himself to her in college was in a Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker.

lol just another act of perjury

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566

[horn4life 3753]

The real bottom line is that Kavanaugh has the prosecution and the jury firmly on his side.  Hilariously there is absolutely no search for truth, rather a search to move to confirmation.  If Kavanaugh lied about his drinking, who cares!  If he drank to the point of blackout every weekend, who cares!  If he sexually assualted some 15 year old when he was 17, well... we need to seem to care...  That is basically the GOP playbook.  Avoid any truth that might imperil the nomination.

Kavanaugh, for example, would never, ever in a million years allow a witness to non-answer the questions they way he repeatedly did. 

I will say that the MOST LIKELY result of an FBI investigation that is not severely restricted and simply allowed to follow the facts... would show Kavanaugh to be dishonest with the Senate at the very, very least.  I also predict if sworn nearly every person that knew kavanaugh will say that he was an excessive drinker without much control.  This is honestly not restricted to Kavanaugh!  It is nearly universal for nerdy types because they are simply not comfortable in their own skin in "party" social settings without massive social lubrication.

[DDD Dad 14146]

3 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Let me retort with another excellent WSJ article. They’ve been killing it. Funny how the WSJ commenters, who I think represent the views of the silent majority of this country far better than this slanted board, have a very different view of things with regards to this farce. Dare I say I’m in the mainstream over there.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-much-politics-in-a-supreme-court-justice-1538405660?tesla=y&mod=article_inline

How Much Politics in a Supreme Court Justice?

Judges aren’t quite as divorced from the messy world of politics as it might seem

Gerald F. SeibOct. 1, 2018 10:54 a.m. ET

Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Supreme Court associate justice nominee, during last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington. Photo: Michael Reynolds/Press Pool

By

Gerald F. Seib

President Dwight Eisenhower was presented with a sudden and unexpected opening on the Supreme Court in 1953, when Chief Justice Fred Vinson died. To fill the slot, he nominated a thoroughly political man with no prior judicial experience: Earl Warren, the governor of California and a former Republican presidential candidate.

Mr. Warren was confirmed by a voice vote in the Senate and joined a court heavy with similarly political figures. It contained at that point three former U.S. senators and two justices who had served as attorney general for the president who appointed him.

The precedent is relevant today because of the roaring controversy over the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, which hangs in the balance this week. That nomination was put into peril initially by charges Mr. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a young woman when both were teens.

But after one of the most dramatic days of Senate testimony in recent times last week, the nomination now also is clouded by charges that Mr. Kavanaugh, in emotionally defending himself, showed that he is both too political in background, and lacking the kind of even-tempered demeanor expected of judges.

The sexual-assault accusation is being sorted out—at least to some extent—by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yet the other assertions are, in some ways, even harder to resolve, because they go to a broader question without a clear answer: What kind of person does the country want as a Supreme Court justice?

The political question is particularly tricky. In the past, a political background was considered fine, perhaps even desirable. Today, it is seen as a questionable attribute.

Senators to Watch on Brett Kavanaugh’s Confirmation Vote

An FBI investigation into allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh may decide the fate of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. WSJ’s Shelby Holliday looks at key Senators to watch leading up to the confirmation vote. Photo: Getty Images

Senators from both parties proclaim they want fair and impartial figures who bring no political agenda to the court. In fact, that is somewhere between misleading and a lie; both sides actually want predictable judges, not impartial ones.

Republicans and conservatives expect their nominees to defend conservative programs and ideas. Indeed, that expectation formed the entire basis for the support many conservatives gave President Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Similarly, liberal Democrats want liberal judges, and they expect Democratic Senators to do everything in their power to block conservative appointments. That forms a large part of the pitch some Democratic activists are making to turn out supporters in key Senate races this fall.

These expectations actually are rational considering the questions the country now expects the Supreme Court to decide. A deeply polarized political system can’t bring itself to fully resolve burning social questions—abortion, same-sex marriage, gun rights—so it relies on the courts to do the job. The drawing of congressional districts has become so blatantly political the only way to reverse the process is to look to the courts.

And, of course, the country turned to the Supreme Court to settle the entire 2000 presidential election, because the state of Florida couldn’t figure out who really won there. If the political part of the system worked better, the court wouldn’t have to do so much.

So it’s no surprise the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court justices have become more partisan and divisive. Yet within this trend lies a ticking time bomb for society: Relying on unelected figures who don’t answer to voters to resolve the most emotionally charged social issues strains the democratic process.

Partly because of such pressures, presidents these days are more likely to pick justices who have prior experience as judges, and in some cases experience only in the legal and judicial spheres.

Certainly that makes today’s justices less political than were some of their predecessors. But the image also is a bit misleading, because judges aren’t quite as divorced from the messy world of politics as it might seem. Justice Elena Kagan, for example, worked in the Clinton White House, not only in the counsel’s office but in the domestic policy shop. Justice Clarence Thomas worked for a Republican Senator and had two jobs in the Reagan administration.

Into this picture walks Mr. Kavanaugh. Though it was less discussed initially, his political background always was one reason his nomination engendered such passionate Democratic opposition. He worked for independent counsel Ken Starr in investigating President Bill Clinton and his inner circle; he was part of the legal team for President George W. Bush fighting out that 2000 election controversy in Florida; later he was a top White House aide to Mr. Bush.

Mr. Kavanaugh himself, though, did the most to draw attention to his own political background by angrily proclaiming during his testimony that the opposition to him was a “political hit” born in part of “revenge on behalf of the Clintons.”

Now, that passage is returning to haunt him. In the sorting out, perhaps the country can finally decide how much politics it wants in a judicial background.

Write to Gerald F. Seib at jerry.seib@wsj.com

 

I'd call that an opinion piece more than an (implied news) article.  It also doesn't really move the needle on this discussion.  Indeed, if anything I think Seib's implication is that we've gone too far pushing political ideologues on our highest court.

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

4 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Let me retort with another excellent WSJ article. They’ve been killing it. Funny how the WSJ commenters, who I think represent the views of the silent majority of this country far better than this slanted board, have a very different view of things with regards to this farce. Dare I say I’m in the mainstream over there.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-much-politics-in-a-supreme-court-justice-1538405660?tesla=y&mod=article_inline

How Much Politics in a Supreme Court Justice?

Judges aren’t quite as divorced from the messy world of politics as it might seem

Gerald F. SeibOct. 1, 2018 10:54 a.m. ET

Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Supreme Court associate justice nominee, during last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington. Photo: Michael Reynolds/Press Pool

By

Gerald F. Seib

President Dwight Eisenhower was presented with a sudden and unexpected opening on the Supreme Court in 1953, when Chief Justice Fred Vinson died. To fill the slot, he nominated a thoroughly political man with no prior judicial experience: Earl Warren, the governor of California and a former Republican presidential candidate.

Mr. Warren was confirmed by a voice vote in the Senate and joined a court heavy with similarly political figures. It contained at that point three former U.S. senators and two justices who had served as attorney general for the president who appointed him.

The precedent is relevant today because of the roaring controversy over the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, which hangs in the balance this week. That nomination was put into peril initially by charges Mr. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a young woman when both were teens.

But after one of the most dramatic days of Senate testimony in recent times last week, the nomination now also is clouded by charges that Mr. Kavanaugh, in emotionally defending himself, showed that he is both too political in background, and lacking the kind of even-tempered demeanor expected of judges.

The sexual-assault accusation is being sorted out—at least to some extent—by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yet the other assertions are, in some ways, even harder to resolve, because they go to a broader question without a clear answer: What kind of person does the country want as a Supreme Court justice?

The political question is particularly tricky. In the past, a political background was considered fine, perhaps even desirable. Today, it is seen as a questionable attribute.

Senators to Watch on Brett Kavanaugh’s Confirmation Vote

An FBI investigation into allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh may decide the fate of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. WSJ’s Shelby Holliday looks at key Senators to watch leading up to the confirmation vote. Photo: Getty Images

Senators from both parties proclaim they want fair and impartial figures who bring no political agenda to the court. In fact, that is somewhere between misleading and a lie; both sides actually want predictable judges, not impartial ones.

Republicans and conservatives expect their nominees to defend conservative programs and ideas. Indeed, that expectation formed the entire basis for the support many conservatives gave President Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Similarly, liberal Democrats want liberal judges, and they expect Democratic Senators to do everything in their power to block conservative appointments. That forms a large part of the pitch some Democratic activists are making to turn out supporters in key Senate races this fall.

These expectations actually are rational considering the questions the country now expects the Supreme Court to decide. A deeply polarized political system can’t bring itself to fully resolve burning social questions—abortion, same-sex marriage, gun rights—so it relies on the courts to do the job. The drawing of congressional districts has become so blatantly political the only way to reverse the process is to look to the courts.

And, of course, the country turned to the Supreme Court to settle the entire 2000 presidential election, because the state of Florida couldn’t figure out who really won there. If the political part of the system worked better, the court wouldn’t have to do so much.

So it’s no surprise the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court justices have become more partisan and divisive. Yet within this trend lies a ticking time bomb for society: Relying on unelected figures who don’t answer to voters to resolve the most emotionally charged social issues strains the democratic process.

Partly because of such pressures, presidents these days are more likely to pick justices who have prior experience as judges, and in some cases experience only in the legal and judicial spheres.

Certainly that makes today’s justices less political than were some of their predecessors. But the image also is a bit misleading, because judges aren’t quite as divorced from the messy world of politics as it might seem. Justice Elena Kagan, for example, worked in the Clinton White House, not only in the counsel’s office but in the domestic policy shop. Justice Clarence Thomas worked for a Republican Senator and had two jobs in the Reagan administration.

Into this picture walks Mr. Kavanaugh. Though it was less discussed initially, his political background always was one reason his nomination engendered such passionate Democratic opposition. He worked for independent counsel Ken Starr in investigating President Bill Clinton and his inner circle; he was part of the legal team for President George W. Bush fighting out that 2000 election controversy in Florida; later he was a top White House aide to Mr. Bush.

Mr. Kavanaugh himself, though, did the most to draw attention to his own political background by angrily proclaiming during his testimony that the opposition to him was a “political hit” born in part of “revenge on behalf of the Clintons.”

Now, that passage is returning to haunt him. In the sorting out, perhaps the country can finally decide how much politics it wants in a judicial background.

Write to Gerald F. Seib at jerry.seib@wsj.com

 

Rehnquist was AG then on the Supreme Court.  People don't generally reject political people from the bench, although it is certainly not the trend any more to have people outside of serious judicial roles be nominated.  But I think it's the stupidity of present politics that makes this tough to grab a partisan now.  You have a dude saying "Clintons!  Angry at Trump's election!" and other dumb stuff we generally reserve for the Jade Helm crew.  He is talking to us at the Facebook meme level.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

48 minutes ago, Dirk X West said:

Ah yes, a "crazy loon from the other side of the political spectrum who no one has heard of or cares about and has little to no influence on anything that matters says something outrageous" post. Classic. 

If you don’t think the ground is being plowed for hatred towards white males by seething leftists seeking to usurp the power structure I don’t know what to tell you. Try reading or watching on TV what progressives like to say. Need to check my white, male privilege. What that really means is through coercion change the power structure of this country.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

44 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

Just want to remind everybody in the thread that Iconoclast called somebody a half-breed.

To be fair, he's a huge Cher fan. 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I'd call that an opinion piece more than an (implied news) article.  It also doesn't really move the needle on this discussion.  Indeed, if anything I think Seib's implication is that we've gone too far pushing political ideologues on our highest court.

 

His point is that wanting an apolitical Justice doesn’t really jive with history and is problematic when Congress has abdicated its responsibility to legislate and resolve the big ticket issues facing this country. Saying Kav disqualified himself on Thursday for mentioning the political forces at play is ridiculous.

[triplehorn 2664]

45 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Eh, the Swetnick allegation, while disqualifying if true, doesn’t put Kavanaugh participating in gang rape and it’s more like a “Kavanaugh ran with a really bad crowd that did a lot of really bad shit.”   The drugs and alcohol involved make getting credible witnesses and testimony challenging. 

Ford’s allegation is the most disqualifying because, if true, you have two eyewitnesses to Kavanaugh committing sexual assault. 

There is a lot of overlapping corroborating evidence and testimony that supports a history of Brett drinking heavily in high school and in college and engaging in sexual misconduct in high school and college.  Swetnick places Brett and Judge at at least one of those train gang parties.  Judge’s ex-gf reports he confided those events happened (wildcat09 above).  Judge himself has continued through his photo/video  production background to make photos w female models appearing unconscious or dead on beds in a provocative context - reminiscent of alleged past patterns of having sex with incapacitated or unconscious girls.

taken together it paints a very sordid picture of a man with zero option but to lie his ass off about everything.  A tail busting choir boy who wrote about farting on his senior page.

[Zonahorn 8079]

6 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

If you don’t think the ground is being plowed for hatred towards white males by seething leftists seeking to usurp the power structure I don’t know what to tell you. Try reading or watching on TV what progressives like to say. Need to check my white, male privilege. What that really means is through coercion change the power structure of this country.

You're a fucking lunatic, and a racist

[DDD Dad 14146]

2 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

His point is that wanting an apolitical Justice doesn’t really jive with history and is problematic when Congress has abdicated its responsibility to legislate and resolve the big ticket issues facing this country. Saying Kav disqualified himself on Thursday for mentioning the political forces at play is ridiculous.

Jibe.

Also, I don't think anyone (certainly not I) is saying Kavanaugh disqualified himself for mentioning the political forces at play.  He disqualified himself in my mind by making numerous demonstrably false statements under oath, was nonresponsive and evasive to both the Senate majority'ss "prosecutor" as well as the minority Senators, and he was combative and offensively disrespectful to the minority Senators.  As for his mention of the political forces, he went well beyond "mentioning" forces at play.  He shouted accusations of wrongdoing from the "Left Wing", and the "Clintons."  I didn't view those comments alone as disqualifying, but they certainly didn't make me think, "this guy would make a great supreme court justice because of his incredible judicial temperament."

Edited October 1, 2018 by DDD Dad

[GHOSTUSER 361]

1 minute ago, Calihorn said:

You're a fucking lunatic, and a racist

Right I’m a racist against my own race! Leftist logic. He is half Iranian half Irish and all white. Dumbass

[VRHorn 718]

So we all agree on the lunatic part, I guess?

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

stewardess?  i speak jibe.

[hobbes2702 12771]

29 minutes ago, The People’s Elbow said:

Iconoclast’s posts are actually disturbing, especially considering his personal history as context. His words aren’t those of a balanced, well-principled individual. He comes across like someone who has no sense of self and fills the void with other people’s ideas.

His hole is currently filled with political tribalism, and he comes off personally invested in his tribe being right and vindicated. 

“A man man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.”

This is 100% accurate

[SubliminalHorn 6643]

Iconoclast reminds me of Rocko.  He doesn’t really understand politics and has latched on to a side that makes him feel better about himself even though none of the policies from that side are meant for him at all. So he uses the fact that he’s on the side of the party currently in power and oh gee doesn’t it make him feel smarter and better about himself!?

Edited October 1, 2018 by SubliminalHorn

[G650 13963]

42 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I'm like 6+ breeds.  As is just about anybody who isn't FOB within a generation or two.  It's called being American.  

You would think so, but we did one of those DNA test things and I'm so white in practically clear.

[Anastasis 23356]

Just now, G650 said:

 You would think so, but we did one of those DNA test things and I'm so white in practically clear.

[G650 13963]

21 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

If you don’t think the ground is being plowed for hatred towards white males by seething leftists seeking to usurp the power structure I don’t know what to tell you. Try reading or watching on TV what progressives like to say. Need to check my white, male privilege. What that really means is through coercion change the power structure of this country.

Good thing you aren't white so you dont have to worry about it.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

I think Iconoclast is a troll and if he’s not, that’s much worse. 

[Zonahorn 8079]

14 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Right I’m a racist against my own race! Leftist logic. He is half Iranian half Irish and all white. Dumbass

You calling somebody a half-breed automatically makes you a racist, dumbass.

[G650 13963]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Precisely. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

24 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

If you don’t think the ground is being plowed for hatred towards white males by seething leftists seeking to usurp the power structure I don’t know what to tell you. Try reading or watching on TV what progressives like to say. Need to check my white, male privilege. What that really means is through coercion change the power structure of this country.

You do realize you’ve become a nazi right?

[Zonahorn 8079]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

You do realize you’ve become a nazi right?

A Voldemort Nazi to boot..

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think Iconoclast is a troll and if he’s not, that’s much worse. 

I’m going with troll. Never met an Iranian American or “Persian” or whatever he wants to call himself who thought remotely like this turd. And Austin has a whole bunch of them who left Iran after the revolution in the 70’s. They followed the Lebanese who have been in Austin for around 100 years (time frame could be off). Almost always great people. 

So troll. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

I’m currently watching the Swetnick interview.  

She’s no Dr. Ford but that’s really too high a standard for a credible witness.

['stache 21740]

Isn't he the tailored jersey guy?  I don't think he's a politics troll.  I just think he's a guy with really shitty opinions and who likes lies.

[atomheartbevo 89348]

28 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Right I’m a racist against my own race! Leftist logic. He is half Iranian half Irish and all white. Dumbass

It always amazes me that people admit to having bog jumpers in their family tree.  

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

It always amazes me that people admit to having bog jumpers in their family tree.  

Yeah hes trolling. Maybe its the long troll. I dunno. I can’t always explain people and their motives. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

So Kavanaugh was trying to head off the Ramirez allegations way before the Ronan Farrow article was published.

This motherfucker lies about everything.

[G650 13963]

I think there is a greater than 25 percent chance that Trump is only dangling Kavanaugh out there to distract from the 3.8 trillion dollar tax cut the house just passed. 

Edited October 1, 2018 by G650

[David Dennison 18561]

2 minutes ago, G650 said:

I think there is a greater than 25 percent chance that Trump is only dangling Kavanaugh out there to distract from the 3.8 trillion dollar tax cut the house just passed. 

That has absolutely no chance of passing the Senate.

[RomaVicta 29744]

39 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

If you don’t think the ground is being plowed for hatred towards white males by seething leftists seeking to usurp the power structure I don’t know what to tell you. Try reading or watching on TV what progressives like to say. Need to check my white, male privilege. What that really means is through coercion change the power structure of this country.

 

 

Everybody's favorite power structure! We'll stick with the status quo, thank you very much!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

There’s no way this ends with Trump pardoning Brett Kavanaugh for perjury in the end.  

Because that would be just too perfect.

 

[Guest]

In regards to some of the discussion on whether this board is an echo chamber, I would say that this board is already insulated enough to be considered one and it is only going to get worse.  I know this will be vigorously denied, but there is not a single forum on the internet that is self-aware of this problem.   A board does not have to have extreme views (e.g. far right or left) to be one; they are defined by having the following elements:

• Large majority of frequent posters agreeing on some set of views (that do not have universal agreement by the general population).
• Low tolerance for anyone who does not agree with that set of views; few well received posts expressing non-consenting views.
• Less posts and participation by the intelligent, circumspect posters who are more or less aligned with the dominant views (e.g. sidis).  
• Posts that take increasingly extreme positions (e.g. civil war in this case).
• Mods that participate in discussion and side with the majority view.
• Heavily used public voting system.
• Frequent posts and updates of little to no substance that dominate discussion. 
• Most prolific posters provide little original content; small number of prolific posters reinforcing same positions ad nauseum. 
• Self-appointed gatekeepers (e.g. "we would like for you to fuck off").  

There are worse echo chambers on the internet than this one, but this forum has all of these properties.  I know what you may be thinking - if only the posters with dissenting views gave decent arguments, then they would be better received/this view is just sour grapes/we are the level-headed centrist view and it's not our fault others have shifted to crazy extremes.  There are still some good posters here that post from time to time, but there are fewer and fewer posts worth reading. Good forums for discussion on the internet have a life cycle and public voting is meth for these forums.  

 

[Lurch 5919]

He’s been trolling hard for a week solid and you fuckers keep biting.

[hayden_horn 11359]

25 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think Iconoclast is a troll and if he’s not, that’s much worse. 

He is not a troll. He's just a lost person. He has been since he famously said he prefers NFL Texan games to Texas Longhorn games. He's been the same guy for years even before his more recent troubles. 

He's a real guy and it's important that we know there are people out there with his crazy worldview. He's far from unique in that regard. 

Yall are right, though. He's just an empty vessel for others to pour their thoughts into. It's kind of sad. 

[David Dennison 18561]

50 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

If you don’t think the ground is being plowed for hatred towards white males by seething leftists seeking to usurp the power structure I don’t know what to tell you. Try reading or watching on TV what progressives like to say. Need to check my white, male privilege. What that really means is through coercion change the power structure of this country.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Usurping the current power structure is long overdue.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

I’m out. Sorry for being on this thread 

[G650 13963]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

He is not a troll. He's just a lost person. He has been since he famously said he prefers NFL Texan games to Texas Longhorn games. He's been the same guy for years even before his more recent troubles. 

He's a real guy and it's important that we know there are people out there with his crazy worldview. He's far from unique in that regard. 

Yall are right, though. He's just an empty vessel for others to pour their thoughts into. It's kind of sad. 

Did he really used to do meth and suck dick or is that an internet rumor?

[Lurch 5919]

He is not a troll. He's just a lost person. He has been since he famously said he prefers NFL Texan games to Texas Longhorn games. He's been the same guy for years even before his more recent troubles. 
He's a real guy and it's important that we know there are people out there with his crazy worldview. He's far from unique in that regard. 
Yall are right, though. He's just an empty vessel for others to pour their thoughts into. It's kind of sad. 

He 100% IS a troll. He’s admitted to it fairly recently. He’s posting extremist positions just to get a reaction.

[DixonHur 11055]

48 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

His point is that wanting an apolitical Justice doesn’t really jive with history and is problematic when Congress has abdicated its responsibility to legislate and resolve the big ticket issues facing this country. Saying Kav disqualified himself on Thursday for mentioning the political forces at play is ridiculous.

I only skimmed the article,what's his position on perjury by a SCOTUS nominee during his/her confirmation hearing?

[Bama Chick 28596]

lol

Sometimes Twitter has it’s uses.

[Patrick Bateman 3902]

Didn't he tell Hatch the first time he heard about these allegations were when the article came out in the New Yorker???  That would be yet another lie under oath.

Looks like Ramirez's reputation amongst her former classmates was strong.....

Edited October 1, 2018 by Patrick Bateman

[JimmyJames 12271]

6 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

In regards to some of the discussion on whether this board is an echo chamber, I would say that this board is already insulated enough to be considered one and it is only going to get worse.  I know this will be vigorously denied, but there is not a single forum on the internet that is self-aware of this problem.   A board does not have to have extreme views (e.g. far right or left) to be one; they are defined by having the following elements:

• Large majority of frequent posters agreeing on some set of views (that do not have universal agreement by the general population).
• Low tolerance for anyone who does not agree with that set of views; few well received posts expressing non-consenting views.
• Less posts and participation by the intelligent, circumspect posters who are more or less aligned with the dominant views (e.g. sidis).  
• Posts that take increasingly extreme positions (e.g. civil war in this case).
• Mods that participate in discussion and side with the majority view.
• Heavily used public voting system.
• Frequent posts and updates of little to no substance that dominate discussion. 
• Most prolific posters provide little original content; small number of prolific posters reinforcing same positions ad nauseum. 
• Self-appointed gatekeepers (e.g. "we would like for you to fuck off").  

There are worse echo chambers on the internet than this one, but this forum has all of these properties.  I know what you may be thinking - if only the posters with dissenting views gave decent arguments, then they would be better received/this view is just sour grapes/we are the level-headed centrist view and it's not our fault others have shifted to crazy extremes.  There are still some good posters here that post from time to time, but there are fewer and fewer posts worth reading. Good forums for discussion on the internet have a life cycle and public voting is meth for these forums.  

 

This board is not an echo chamber. This board is one that is favor of truth, which means it is inherently anti-trump because his purpose and his owners purpose is to render the truth meaningless so that they can further enrich themselves. After all that’s what criminal enterprises do. If that makes this board an echo chamber then so be it.

Trump supporters should be shouted down at all costs, because they are ignorant of what trump and his owners ultimately want for this country, which would ultimately lead to even more enslavement than they already have. They are pawns being used by powerful men and interests who whether they want to or not will ultimately destroy what this country stands for and was created by our great initial LIBERAL leaders like washington, Hamilton,  Adams, Jefferson, etc. 

So if you have some arguments to counter that, have at it, but otherwise this place will continue to be an “echo chamber” that resists such results. 

[DixonHur 11055]

Ramirez?  With a name like that I wouldn't be surprised if we find out SHE'S the real rapist.  Probably an MS-13 member too.