Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[Brisketexan 107004]

Is there a reason you cannot give a simple yes or no answer to a simple yes or no question?  Here it is again:
Does "if A, then B" logically imply "A is false"?  

No. When referencing something that has already occurred, it implies that A is uncertain. Which is a purposefully false implication.

You knew something to be true, yet characterized it as an uncertainty. That is a falsehood.

What makes me chuckle isn’t that you’re a liar - there are a jillion if those - it’s that you think you’re being clever. That’s actually funny.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Jennifer Rubin Op-ed

Ford runs circles around hapless Republicans, who now have a second scandal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/22/ford-runs-circles-around-hapless-republicans-who-now-have-a-second-scandal/

 

Christine Blasey Ford’s attorney did not actually agree to any specific terms, but she and her client got the headlines they wanted: Ford is coming to tell her story. Ford attorney Debra Katz repeatedly has stared down Republican Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), swatting away one artificial deadline after another. Grassley told her he needed an answer by Friday at 10 a.m. That got pushed to 10 p.m., and then to 2:30 p.m. on Saturday. Katz rightly called these deadlines arbitrary and more importantly knew she had leverage. With Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Jeff Flake of Arizona saying they wanted to hear from Ford before voting, Grassley couldn’t very well cut off discussion. He didn’t have the votes to confirm the nominee.  If Republicans were hoping to intimidate Ford it didn’t work. Rather it revealed that there is a slim chance, more than zero, that Republicans might not have the votes after this next week.

In the past 48 hours or so Republicans have made repeated, stupid mistakes that have not helped their position. President Trump attacked Ford, asserting she would have gone to the police as a 15-year-old if the attempted rape was “that bad.” Collins pronounced herself “appalled.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) repeatedly vowed he would confirm Kavanaugh. They’d “plow through” he declared, a remarkable confession that they’ll bulldoze Ford and vote to confirm no matter what. The public can conclude Republicans have no problem sitting Kavanaugh even if Ford’s clam is true.

Republicans compounded their errors by their own misconduct. The Post reported Friday night:

 

A conservative legal commentator on Friday denied communicating with the White House or Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh about his theory that the woman accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault was mistaking him for someone else.

“I have not communicated at all with [White House counsel] Donald McGahn or anyone at the White House, or Judge Kavanaugh, about the topic of the Twitter thread,” Ed Whelan said in a brief interview with The Washington Post.

Nevertheless, it appears someone communicated her name to Whelan before it was made public. (Last Sunday, “Ford alerted an associate via email that Whelan had looked at her LinkedIn page, according to the email, which was reviewed by The Post. LinkedIn allows some subscribers to see who views their pages. Ford sent the email about 90 minutes after The Post shared her name with a White House spokesman and hours before her identity was revealed in a story posted on its website.”)

The question now is whether anyone at the White House, Kavanaugh or at the Senate Judiciary Committee was involved in the harebrained scheme to accuse a classmate of Kavanaugh’s under the bonkers theory Ford got the identity of her attacker “confused.” Well, someone told Whelan what was up, and any coordination with Kavanaugh (for example, via the right-wing PR outfit CRC, who hyped Whelan’s revelation), would be separate grounds for denying him confirmation and would also ensnare the judge in the host of civil and ethical problems Whelan created.

As if that weren’t enough, an employee of CRC on loan to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Garrett Ventry, resigned for falsifying his résumé and for alleged sexual harassment. (Don’t confuse him with another staffer Mike Davis, who spent time tweeting during the week, disparaging Ford and asserting this was in essence a done deal. “Unfazed and determined. We will confirm Judge Kavanaugh,” he asserted.)

Even if they had tried, Republicans could have not done a better job demonstrating their bias, ineptitude, unseriousness, meanness, unfairness and general lack of empathy. They have become a walking advertisement for Democratic Senate candidates (“Can you believe these clowns?” would be an apt bumper sticker) and an embarrassment to their own operatives who see the Kavanaugh confirmation hanging by a thread.

There are now at least two related scandals : 1.) Whether Kavanaugh attacked Ford and now is lying, and 2.) the identities of those involved in a reprehensible scheme to pin a crime on someone for which there is zero evidence of wrongdoing. Between Trump’s ridiculous assertion that a 15-year-old’s failure to report a sex crime (which launched the #WhyIDidntReport social media phenomenon) and the nutty mistaken identity plot (which seems to concede Ford was attacked) Republicans have inflicted far more damage on this nomination than Democrats have up until now.

It remains to be seen if Republicans either themselves or through an outside lawyer have the nerve to grill Ford about the attack on her and the lifetime of trauma it unleashed. Free advice: Cut their losses, get Kavanaugh to withdraw and promise a better nominee with no baggage later this year or next.

[Mole 4344]

The Brisket/Aphelion pedantic circle jerk is distracting from the death throes of our democracy. Focusness people.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, Mole said:

The Brisket/Aphelion pedantic circle jerk is distracting from the death throes of our democracy. Focusness people.

Brisket has a latent attraction to obvious trolls

[Brisketexan 107004]

Brisket has a latent attraction to obvious trolls

I assume they have big boobs. I’m a sucker for boobs. Am I wrong here? Don’t shatter my illusions, man.

[MixtyMotions 102]

Let's be clear:  The accuser did not accept the offer.  The Judiciary Committee understands that, and sooner or later, they'll give up on the delays and vote.  The accuser will not testify.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

No. When referencing something that has already occurred, it implies that A is uncertain. Which is a purposefully false implication.

You knew something to be true, yet characterized it as an uncertainty. That is a falsehood.

What makes me chuckle isn’t that you’re a liar - there are a jillion if those - it’s that you think you’re being clever. That’s actually funny.

You have no idea what you are talking about.  Conditional statements are claims on what is implied (their consequent, B in the example) from their antecedent (A in the example).  They make no claims on one's knowledge of the veracity of the antecedent.  I can say "if the number 7 is prime, then it has no whole number factors other than 1 and itself."  This is a perfectly true statement regardless of whether I know 7 is prime or not.  This statement in no way implies that I do not know whether 7 is prime or not, nor does it imply that I am challenging the truth of 7 being prime.  These types of statements are used in arguments all the time even when one knows that the antecedent is true.  Absolutely no one who has any idea what they are talking about would object to a conditional statement used in this manner on the basis that the speaker already knows that the antecedent is true.      

To use your example, if you were to say "If you are replying to me on Surly, then my user name is Brisketexan," then this would not be lying (as you incorrectly stated is would be) because it is a true statement.   Here is how to determine if a conditional statement is true or false:

A conditional statement is true when the antecedent and consequent are both true.  The statement I said to you had a true antecedent and a true consequent, therefore it is a true statement.  Therefore it is not a lie to state it.  Notice that there is no consideration on the truth table for whether or not the speaker knows whether the antecedent is true.  That is an absurd additional requirement that you just made up.  Find a single source that states otherwise.  You won't.  

Now that I have explained to you how conditional statements work, be honest and admit you falsely accused me of lying.  

[Bama Chick 28596]

Jesus, you’re a beating.

 

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Brisket has a latent attraction to obvious trolls

Maybe I should mindlessly repost 500 twitter comments a day.  

 

3 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Jesus, you’re a beating.

 

I'm aware.  

Edited September 22, 2018 by Guest

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

It would certainly add more value 

Edited September 22, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Lurch 5950]

[formermav43 4631]

16 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It would certainly add more value 

It really doesn’t.

[Anastasis 23719]

21 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

You have no idea what you are talking about.  Conditional statements are claims on what is implied (their consequent, B in the example) from their antecedent (A in the example).  They make no claims on one's knowledge of the veracity of the antecedent.  I can say "if the number 7 is prime, then it has no whole number factors other than 1 and itself."  This is a perfectly true statement regardless of whether I know 7 is prime or not.  This statement in no way implies that I do not know whether 7 is prime or not, nor does it imply that I am challenging the truth of 7 being prime.  These types of statements are used in arguments all the time even when one knows that the antecedent is true.  Absolutely no one who has any idea what they are talking about would object to a conditional statement used in this manner on the basis that the speaker already knows that the antecedent is true.      

To use your example, if you were to say "If you are replying to me on Surly, then my user name is Brisketexan," then this would not be lying (as you incorrectly stated is would be) because it is a true statement.   Here is how to determine if a conditional statement is true or false:

A conditional statement is true when the antecedent and consequent are both true.  The statement I said to you had a true antecedent and a true consequent, therefore it is a true statement.  Therefore it is not a lie to state it.  Notice that there is no consideration on the truth table for whether or not the speaker knows whether the antecedent is true.  That is an absurd additional requirement that you just made up.  Find a single source that states otherwise.  You won't.  

Now that I have explained to you how conditional statements work, be honest and admit you falsely accused me of lying.  

Traitor. 

[Anastasis 23719]

16 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It would certainly add more value 

Wrong.gif

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

Edited September 23, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

27 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

You have no idea what you are talking about.  Conditional statements are claims on what is implied (their consequent, B in the example) from their antecedent (A in the example).  They make no claims on one's knowledge of the veracity of the antecedent.  I can say "if the number 7 is prime, then it has no whole number factors other than 1 and itself."  This is a perfectly true statement regardless of whether I know 7 is prime or not.  This statement in no way implies that I do not know whether 7 is prime or not, nor does it imply that I am challenging the truth of 7 being prime.  These types of statements are used in arguments all the time even when one knows that the antecedent is true.  Absolutely no one who has any idea what they are talking about would object to a conditional statement used in this manner on the basis that the speaker already knows that the antecedent is true.      

To use your example, if you were to say "If you are replying to me on Surly, then my user name is Brisketexan," then this would not be lying (as you incorrectly stated is would be) because it is a true statement.   Here is how to determine if a conditional statement is true or false:

A conditional statement is true when the antecedent and consequent are both true.  The statement I said to you had a true antecedent and a true consequent, therefore it is a true statement.  Therefore it is not a lie to state it.  Notice that there is no consideration on the truth table for whether or not the speaker knows whether the antecedent is true.  That is an absurd additional requirement that you just made up.  Find a single source that states otherwise.  You won't.  

Now that I have explained to you how conditional statements work, be honest and admit you falsely accused me of lying.  

WTF ? 

[EMAWesome 101]

22 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

60 Minutes time.

Fuck these assholes 

I'm pretty sure sexual assault is the last subject 60 Minutes wants to go into right now.

[EMAWesome 101]

22 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Most people do.

 

https://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/athena/files/2018/09/19/5ba234fde4b046313fc11590.pdf

Skip down to question nine from this poll.  

 

Only 26% of registered voters find the accusation credible.  Only 28% of men and 25% of women find the accusation credible.  So as usual you do not know what you are talking about.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Most people do not find her allegations “not credible”.

[EMAWesome 101]

Most people also do not find her allegations credible.  Of course over 50% of the people in the country can not name one single justice on the Supreme Court so most people don't really care what is going on at these hearings.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Doesn’t matter.  Kavanaugh looking more finished by the day. 

And it isn’t because of dirty tricks by the democrats.

It’s because Kavanaugh was a shitty nomination that wasn’t properly vetted beforehand. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Behold the EXIT Strategy 

 

[HtownHorn 15231]

Womp, womp

[bad_teammate 13566]

5 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Snicker. Your rhetoric is based entirely on misrepresenting others. Transparent is right. 

 

McConnell absolutely contributed to tightening and accelerating our political dysfunction.  

I am SHOCKED, buddy, that you still refuse to answer simple questions that lay bare the moral, intellectual, and ethical bankruptcy of your both-sides worldview...

- Which Senators would vote differently on Kavanaugh if his alleged victim had come out earlier?

- What should the Dems have done in the face of Garland being obstructed that wouldn't constitute a continuation of the death spiral?

[jimmyjazz 47284]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

- What should the Dems have done in the face of Garland being obstructed that wouldn't constitute a continuation of the death spiral?

The Dems should always take the high road.  It's worked out so well in the past.

[Captainant 28592]

19 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

Womp, womp

what the fuck source are you posting here? That writer is a rush limbaugh-type of dickhead radio host. 

[HtownHorn 15231]

8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

what the fuck source are you posting here? That writer is a rush limbaugh-type of dickhead radio host. 

And all he's doing is quoting the letter from the witness's attorney. Sorry it destroyed the narrative that this party ever happened.

Edited September 23, 2018 by HtownHorn

[David Dennison 19568]

6 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

And all he's doing is quoting the letter from the witness's attorney. Sorry it destroyed the narrative that this party ever happened.

You know that's not true.

[HtownHorn 15231]

More on Ms. Leland Keyser

1) A lifelong friend of Dr. Ford

2) Once married to Bob Beckel

Ford should just recant her story now, even her lifelong friend isn't supporting her. Of course, even if she did recant her story, every lib on this thread would still believe Kavanaugh assaulted her.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Lulz.  He's already had to issue a correction in the initial story because he overstated the significance of this woman. 

[HtownHorn 15231]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Lulz.  He's already had to issue a correction in the initial story because he overstated the significance of this woman. 

Lulz, she was named as a witness in the original statement. A fucking witness is not significant now in the world of libs.

[hobbes2702 13503]

1 minute ago, HtownHorn said:

Lulz, she was named as a witness in the original statement. A fucking witness is not significant now in the world of libs.

I think the point was that he had to correct his statement because she is in fact not a witness.

[bad_teammate 13566]

2 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

she was named as a witness in the original statement.

Source your assertion, please.

[retread 2951]

 

[David Dennison 19568]

3 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

Lulz, she was named as a witness in the original statement. A fucking witness is not significant now in the world of libs.

I bet the FBI could figure it out.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

3 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

Lulz, she was named as a witness in the original statement. A fucking witness is not significant now in the world of libs.

And yet, the correction in the very story you linked makes clear why that's not true. 

[hobbes2702 13503]

There is literally an update at the top of the “article” clarifying that she isn’t a witness and be overstated.

[David Dennison 19568]

1 minute ago, retread said:

 

Uh oh.

 

[Telegraph_it 3379]

3 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

There is literally an update at the top of the “article” clarifying that she isn’t a witness and be overstated.

Is this when there were 4 boys at the party or when it was 3 boys and one girl or 4 total but only two boys who knew. This is difficult to keep track of. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Mole 4344]

We're really in the bizarro 90s. Everything is the same but worse. What K-Pop group is the bizarro Nirvana?

[Ragnarok 103]

9 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

And yet, the correction in the very story you linked makes clear why that's not true. 

Ford places Ms Keyser at the party.  Ms. Keyser, a lifelong friend, says she never met Kavanaugh and has no idea what Ford is talking about. Your response to that is: Well, she's not really a witness then, is she?

I don't usually bother responding or even reading anything on this board since it turned into one long boring lefty circle jerk, but this thread, well, it's been worth reading just for gems like that above. And that it is victim shaming to point out that Ms. Ford seems to be able to fly when she wants to.  You need to learn what victim shaming is. It's the NY Times, after Patricia Bowman accused William Kennedy Smith of rape,  "reporting on her speeding tickets, partying in adulthood and even dredging up an unnamed woman who claimed Bowman showed a 'little wild streak' in high school."   Or James Carville, tallking about Paula Jones,  saying that you never know what you'll find when you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park

 

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

Ford places Ms Keyser at the party.  Ms. Keyser, a lifelong friend, says she never met Kavanaugh and has no idea what Ford is talking about. Your response to that is: Well, she's not really a witness then, is she?

I don't usually bother responding or even reading anything on this board since it turned into one long boring lefty circle jerk, but this thread, well, it's been worth reading just for gems like that above. And that it is victim shaming to point out that Ms. Ford seems to be able to fly when she wants to.  You need to learn what victim shaming is. It's the NY Times, after Patricia Bowman accused William Kennedy Smith of rape,  "reporting on her speeding tickets, partying in adulthood and even dredging up an unnamed woman who claimed Bowman showed a 'little wild streak' in high school."   Or James Carville, tallking about Paula Jones,  saying that you never know what you'll find when you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park

 

 

No, my response is that she isn't a purported witness to the attempted rape, by Dr. Ford's account.   Which is why the linked article had to issue its own correction.   She is merely purported to have attended the party in question.   Sure, if she happened to remember seeing her friend go off into a back room with Judge and Kavanaugh and come out in tears, that would be powerful confirmation of the allegations.    That she doesn't recall being at a random party 36 years ago in which, unbeknownst to her, an attempted rape was happening in anther room, doesn't confirm or refute anything, one way or the other.  It's a nullity.

I get why the right-wing propaganda machine is desperate to make this some sort of eyewitness exoneration, but you do realize that's total bullshit? 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13741]

Republicans are in a tough position.  They picked a flawed scotus candidate and now they’re stuck.   Keep him and piss off some women, who may have voted gop in the upcoming elections.  Drop kavanaugh and piss off gop voters that are upset that the gop struggles to get something done even while controlling Congress and the WH.

you also have the fact that polls have kavanaugh as the least popular scotus nominee since Bork.    

I also wouldn’t be surprised if Feinstein or the dems have other info about kavanaugh to spring on him during the upcoming hearing.  Politically they have no reason to announce any evidence or additional letters.  kavanaugh isnt entitled to all evidence against him in advance. He is choosing to go thru this. 

 

[MixtyMotions 102]

Please tell me that this sort of thing does not happen in the good ol' USA:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/22/politics/mark-judge-books-details-keg-quest/index.html

[MixtyMotions 102]

6 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Republicans are in a tough position.  ...

It's not tough for this Republican, or any I know personally.  What do Republicans you know say?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13741]

1 minute ago, MixtyMotions said:

It's not tough for this Republican, or any I know personally.  What do Republicans you know say?

I was referring to republicans in the senate.  If you’re in the senate, what’s the inside scoop?

[Anastasis 23719]

29 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

No, my response is that she isn't a purported witness to the attempted rape, by Dr. Ford's account.   Which is why the linked article had to issue its own correction.   She is merely purported to have attended the party in question.   

This is some gymnastics MJ, but you are not the only one engaging in them. The lady was reported, apparently by Dr. Ford's lawyers in talks with committee staff, as being a corroborating witness to Dr. Ford's account of the party. She is, according to her lawyer, a lifelong friend of Dr. Ford's.  She says she has no recollection of the party that Dr. Ford is describing, or any other where Kavanaugh was present.  If her statement reflected the opposite, Kavanaugh would be done.  

[bad_teammate 13566]

6 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

Please tell me that this sort of thing does not happen in the good ol' USA:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/22/politics/mark-judge-books-details-keg-quest/index.html

CNN has no confirmation that the Bart O'Kavanaugh mentioned in the passage above refers to Brett Kavanaugh.

lol

Pack the fucking court, you coward libs.

[bad_teammate 13566]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

The lady was reported, apparently by Dr. Ford's lawyers in talks with committee staff, as being a corroborating witness to Dr. Ford's account of the party.

Source?

Quote

She is, according to her lawyer, a lifelong friend of Dr. Ford's.

Anything from Ford's side on that? You're just assuming this woman would know based on... what?

Quote

If her statement reflected the opposite, Kavanaugh would be done.  

While you're carrying so much GOP water, do you have time to name the Senators who would not vote to confirm? Will you answer the question if I say "please"? What if I give you a dollar?