kavanaugh

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Re: kavanaugh

Post by mikefrench »

He got really choked up talking about his daughter praying for “the woman” (Dr Ford).


The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14992
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Re: kavanaugh

Post by Hunter »

mikefrench wrote: Hirono gave a sensible answer about credibility to an idiotic question that confused a confirmation hearing with a criminal prosecution.
It is not a sensible answer, it is a revolting answer. If she thought the question was dumb or irrelevant, she definitely should have just said that, instead of revealing what Admiral Motti has described as "the truly awful point Hirono was actually making." I assume that when he says the point is "truly awful" he doesn't mean that it is poorly-reasoned or something like that. And instead means it says truly awful things about her character and moral compass. ALL of your comments on Hirono have evaded what Motti said on that "truly awful point Hirono was actually making" and have instead done nothing but insult the intelligence of the reader.

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Re: kavanaugh

Post by mikefrench »

Yah we disagree that her comments were morally awful, I get that
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

AdmiralMotti89
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 2114
Joined: February 28th, 2016, 3:38 pm
Location: Nebraska, USA

Re: kavanaugh

Post by AdmiralMotti89 »

Hunter wrote:
Hirono gave a sensible answer about credibility to an idiotic question that confused a confirmation hearing with a criminal prosecution.
It is not a sensible answer, it is a revolting answer. If she thought the question was dumb or irrelevant, she definitely should have just said that, instead of revealing what Admiral Motti has described as "the truly awful point Hirono was actually making." I assume that when he says the point is "truly awful" he doesn't mean that it is poorly-reasoned or something like that. And instead means it says truly awful things about her character and moral compass. ALL of your comments on Hirono have evaded what Motti said on that "truly awful point Hirono was actually making" and have instead done nothing but insult the intelligence of the reader.
This about sums it up. Hirono was given a chance to say that accusations do not mean guilt, that there should be presumption of innocence. But instead of affirming that for Kavanaugh, as it should be affirmed for everyone, she is refusing that to him and dismissing his denial of the accusations. And when we listen further, we hear her reason for the dismissal of this is because of how he approaches cases as a judge. That's derangement on her part.

People should have the presumption of innocence when accused of a crime, even when I disagree with them politically. Hirono disagrees with me on that point. Hers is indeed a revolting, awful opinion.
Tapper: Doesn't Kavanaugh have the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?

Hirono: I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases. As I said, his credibility is already very questionable in my mind and in the minds of a lot of my fellow Judiciary Committee members, the Democrats. So he comes, and -- when I say that he's very outcome-driven, he has an ideological agenda, is very outcome-driven. And I can sit here and talk to you about some of the cases that exemplifies his, in my view, inability to be fair in the cases that come before him. This is a person that is going to be sitting on our Supreme Court, making decisions that will impact women's reproductive choice. He has a -- he very much is against women's reproductive choice.
Eric Garchow
My eBay Store 10% off orders of 10+ items, plus free shipping on orders of $50+
My videos/photos of opening sealed SWCCG + other SWCCG things.
My Frequently Updating SWCCG Wants List

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14992
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Re: kavanaugh

Post by Hunter »

mikefrench wrote:Yah we disagree that her comments were morally awful, I get that
So maybe you could have tried to justify that position, and explain why she doesn't have the "revolting, awful opinion" that Motti has described? Rather than evading what's been said to instead randomly keep on thumping away on some "point" about whether Kavanaugh is accurately being described as "outcome-driven" with regard to "how he approaches his cases." Who are you supposed to be talking to? That does not address what anyone here was saying about the quote.
The Straw Man wrote:
mikefrench wrote:as to the mazie hirono quote that got some of you all bent out of shape - she is accurately describing kavanaugh. he is outcome driven.
Ouch!
The Straw Man wrote:
mikefrench wrote:I think Hirono and others are completely correct when they allege that Kavanaugh (and Scalia, and Alito, and Gorsuch) are "outcome-driven."
Oof, ya got me again!
Maybe try responding to what Motti actually HAS said about the quote. Or explain to me how it isn't reprehensible for her to act like he should forfeit the presumption of innocence because "he's very outcome-driven" in "how he approaches his cases." Explain how it isn't disgusting for her to act like his denial of sexual misconduct is made dubious because "he very much is against women's reproductive choice."

I think you've picked a losing battle, on this quote. And I'm not sure why. You could have just said that "yeah, not EVERY Democrat opposing Kavanaugh's nomination is necessarily a good egg..." or you could have even just...NOT commented on her quote at all. But to DEFEND it? Sickening. Are you incapable of seeing a politically-active Democrat under fire without being coerced to take up the banner? Are you incapable of seeing AdmiralMotti say...anything...without being coerced to oppose him? I just don't understand what would motivate a person to behave how you behave, sometimes.

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Re: RE: Re: kavanaugh

Post by mikefrench »

AdmiralMotti89 wrote:
Hari Seldon wrote:
It really is, so long as you ignore that he lied to the senate multiple times earlier in his career, and that his first statement after trump’s announcement was a fawning lie. I posted about these things earlier in this thread and no one engaged on it.
Not sure about what the lie after Trumps announcement means, but all kinds of media outlets have fact checked the * out of the claims of lying to the senate earlier in his career and nothing holds water. I presume most in this thread know that as to why you didn't get any engagement.
The alleged lying has nothing to do with what Hirono was getting at. It's a red herring. The lying to the senate or whatever is a deflection from the truly awful point Hirono was actually making. She was saying she doesn't believe his denial of the allegations because of how he approaches his cases.

She is suggesting that someone doesn't deserve the presumption of innocence in regards to allegations of very serious crimes when they make decisions that (allegedly) have a political bias that she doesn't agree with.

Imagine if the same standard were applied to Clinton and Broaddrick. His denial of those allegations (technically his lawyer's denial on his behalf) does not entitle him the presumption of innocence because of how he approached vetoing legislation, for example?

Spin doctors can spin all they like, and deflect all they want. But it won't change that what Hirono is fundamentally saying here is that people whose political beliefs she disagrees with don't deserve the presumption of innocence when accused because of those beliefs.
so this is ostensibly the post Hunter is ranting about, i thought it was a fairly terrible post overall

she isn't suggesting anything about ideology deciding whether or not to give the presumption of innocence, she is showing her thought process. she had at this point already spent considerable time evaluating kavanaugh. this was after the first round of committee hearings, personal interviews, questionnaires, and so on. she had already seen tons of evidence to what kind of person kavanaugh was and came to a different conclusion than admiralmotti - that kavanaugh was someone with questionable credibility who used preferred outcomes to decide cases (instead of the relevant details of the case), someone who was ideologically driven, someone who in her opinion was not deciding cases fairly and was doing so knowingly. she said she put his denial inside of that context. and ofc, as i've mentioned before, KAVANAUGH LIED TO THE SENATE IN THE EARLY 2000s.

bill clinton was a slick opportunistic guy who was very good at rhetoric. he was very good at turns of phrase, and presenting arguments in extremely favorable ways. when someone accused him of sexual misconduct, of course people should not have given him the same presumption of innocence that we give to a random person - we should have view clinton inside the context of someone who was knowingly dishonest in response to pointed questioning. we should learn from the mistakes that were made wrt clinton, not insist on repeating them.

i understand that none of this matters, and motti and hunter will grab on to the last few remarks in that hirono quote where she talks about how kavanaugh is against reproductive freedom, but i think it's clear that she had made her point (that she was judging kavanaugh in context and had already found him to be lacking credibility) and was moving on. imagine if we parsed trump quotes with the same ferocity as you guys are parsing hirono's quote!
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Re: kavanaugh

Post by mikefrench »

just to make it more concise

if you decide that a nominee is dishonest in how he approaches his cases, that gives you a reason to doubt his credibility in general.
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14992
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Re: RE: Re: kavanaugh

Post by Hunter »

mikefrench wrote: she isn't suggesting anything about ideology deciding whether or not to give the presumption of innocence
lol, that is THE question that is answered in her comments.

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Re: kavanaugh

Post by mikefrench »

you're really not understanding

she's evaluating his jurisprudence. she's saying "he's not credible because he isn't deciding cases fairly." the actual quote is in the middle of her answer:

"And I can sit here and talk to you about some of the cases that exemplifies his, in my view, inability to be fair in the cases that come before him."

(she then goes on to talk about some of the cases, like with reproductive freedom)

he's not credible because he has an inability to be fair in the cases that come before him, because he's an ideologue who is outcome-driven. that's the context in which she puts his denials.
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Re: kavanaugh

Post by mikefrench »

it's also amazing that this is the best quote you guys have to hold on to

whereas we have

kavanaugh smugly and derisively asking someone who had just talked about living with an alcoholic father who is still in AA at age 90 whether or not she had ever been blackout drunk

lindsay graham having a complete meltdown

orrin hatch saying "I think she's an attractive, good witness." and then when pressed he CLARIFIED "in other words, she's pleasing."

kavanaugh blatantly lying multiple times (he in recorded emails acknowledges memory lapses after a night drinking and playing dice games, for instance)
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

User avatar
dorshe1
Member
Posts: 8422
Joined: June 13th, 2013, 3:57 pm
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
Holotable username: dorshe1
GEMP Username: dorshe1
Contact:

Re: kavanaugh

Post by dorshe1 »

Image

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14992
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Re: kavanaugh

Post by Hunter »

mikefrench wrote:you're really not understanding

she's evaluating his jurisprudence.
You're really not understanding. She is giving her answer to whether he is entitled to "the same presumption of innocence as everyone else in America." And her answer is disgraceful. (Or revolting, or disgusting, or reprehensible. All good descriptors that were used earlier.)
mikefrench wrote: the actual quote is in the middle of her answer:

"And I can sit here and talk to you about some of the cases that exemplifies his, in my view, inability to be fair in the cases that come before him."

(she then goes on to talk about some of the cases, like with reproductive freedom)
Unfortunately for her, that is not the correct answer. That is not an acceptable answer. The correct answer was "Of course."

Let me try to put some of your random ramblings about Bill Clinton to some sort of actual use here. You said this:
mikefrench wrote:bill clinton was a slick opportunistic guy who was very good at rhetoric. he was very good at turns of phrase, and presenting arguments in extremely favorable ways. when someone accused him of sexual misconduct, of course people should not have given him the same presumption of innocence that we give to a random person - we should have view clinton inside the context of someone who was knowingly dishonest in response to pointed questioning. we should learn from the mistakes that were made wrt clinton, not insist on repeating them.
Now, imagine that tomorrow someone pops up and accuses Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct that is supposed to have taken place yesterday. Imagine he says that nothing of the sort took place. And then imagine that someone asks you (mikefrench) a question. They ask "Doesn't Clinton have the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?" I'm going to help you figure out the correct answer here. The correct answer is "Of course." Because you should not have mistakenly indicated that we would give the presumption of innocence to *A* random person, instead of to *EVERY* person.

The correct answer does not start saying something about who is "very good at turns of phrase." Or who "presents arguments in extremely favorable ways." Just as that correct answer does NOT say anything about who is "outcome-driven" in "how he approaches his cases." Just as that correct answer does NOT say anything about who "very much is against women's reproductive choice." Such answers would be INcorrect. Would be UNacceptable. Would be IMmoral. Would be WRONG.

AdmiralMotti89
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 2114
Joined: February 28th, 2016, 3:38 pm
Location: Nebraska, USA

Re: kavanaugh

Post by AdmiralMotti89 »

Hunter wrote:Because you should not have mistakenly indicated that we would give the presumption of innocence to *A* random person, instead of to *EVERY* person.
This is pretty incisive regarding what underlies Hirono's awful beliefs, that rights don't apply to everyone, and then it follows that they only apply to those one agrees with. Unfortunate to see that Marcuse is still so influential.
Eric Garchow
My eBay Store 10% off orders of 10+ items, plus free shipping on orders of $50+
My videos/photos of opening sealed SWCCG + other SWCCG things.
My Frequently Updating SWCCG Wants List

Hari Seldon
Booster Box
Booster Box
Posts: 1289
Joined: May 9th, 2010, 6:46 pm

Re: kavanaugh

Post by Hari Seldon »

Haven't seen much on Twitter this morning (my go to for latest news and glimpses in to the very worst humanity has to offer) but as of last night it sounded like they had the votes. All R's were on board and even Manchin was looking like a yes vote. This is the wildest thing, I believe I have gone between thinking he'll be confirmed to he's toast 3-4 times in less than two weeks.

Anybody think Avennati will pay a price for this if Kavanaugh gets on SCOTUS? It sure seems to me his allegation and accuser were so salacious, the story so full of holes and basically beyond belief, and the crimes themselves such multiple orders of magnitude beyond anything suggested previously that it warped the entirety of the accusations against him. I don't think Kavanaugh goes HAM in his opening statement without the Avennati stuff, I don't think Graham does either in his statement, and those two things are among the more memorable moments of yesterday's hearing.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
allstarz97 wrote:...and thematically, as everyone is referencing on this thread, why are people not mentioning the part where mace windu is crying like a little *, gets his hand cut off and then gets thrown out a window?

User avatar
JarJarDrinks
Member
Posts: 26442
Joined: November 4th, 2003, 10:01 am

Re: kavanaugh

Post by JarJarDrinks »

what do you believe ?
dx_37 wrote:
October 2nd, 2019, 12:12 pm
I would be all for a reset if I get to be on the reset team
"Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking."
- Bill Maher

"How you play the game is important. But for me, it's about if you win or lose."
- Derek Jeter

User avatar
dorshe1
Member
Posts: 8422
Joined: June 13th, 2013, 3:57 pm
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
Holotable username: dorshe1
GEMP Username: dorshe1
Contact:

Re: kavanaugh

Post by dorshe1 »

JarJarDrinks wrote:
what do you believe ?
That providing my opinion in this forum is a waste of time so I am reverting back to full troll mode.

Thanks!
Image

User avatar
JarJarDrinks
Member
Posts: 26442
Joined: November 4th, 2003, 10:01 am

Re: kavanaugh

Post by JarJarDrinks »

dorshe1 wrote:
JarJarDrinks wrote:
what do you believe ?
That providing my opinion in this forum is a waste of time so I am reverting back to full troll mode.

Thanks!
Bzzzt!

Correct answer is that children are our future.
dx_37 wrote:
October 2nd, 2019, 12:12 pm
I would be all for a reset if I get to be on the reset team
"Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking."
- Bill Maher

"How you play the game is important. But for me, it's about if you win or lose."
- Derek Jeter

TB
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 4130
Joined: July 8th, 2010, 8:10 pm

Re: kavanaugh

Post by TB »

that whole thing in the telly yesterday was insane. I dont know what to say. its a reality show. I am so sorry to say but it is not worthy of the planets greatest country. what is happening? I mean, its a job interview for a huge position. people crying and emotions running over and weird dramaturgical pauses and.. its just too much.

personally, I think its horrible if Kav gets the job. I think it will lock the SC into medieval morals for the next many years, but.. that theatre we saw yesterday. its just so painful to watch. it feels as if politics is just one big joke now.

Just the idea of having danish professionals crying on tv while trying to defend themselves from sexual assault charges from 36 years ago is so far out. the whole concept of that ever happening is impossible to imagine.

and Trumps review of Kavanaughs "performance"???? "Captivating, breathtaking, exactly what america needs" WT actual F is going on!?
Results:
European Championships 2014 - 3rd place
European Championships 2013 - 8th place
Toola Regionals 2013 - runner up
European Championships 2011 - 5th place

AdmiralMotti89
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 2114
Joined: February 28th, 2016, 3:38 pm
Location: Nebraska, USA

Re: kavanaugh

Post by AdmiralMotti89 »

JarJarDrinks wrote: Correct answer is that children are our future.
Image
Eric Garchow
My eBay Store 10% off orders of 10+ items, plus free shipping on orders of $50+
My videos/photos of opening sealed SWCCG + other SWCCG things.
My Frequently Updating SWCCG Wants List

User avatar
JarJarDrinks
Member
Posts: 26442
Joined: November 4th, 2003, 10:01 am

Re: kavanaugh

Post by JarJarDrinks »

https://babylonbee.com/news/kavanaugh-p ... igh-school
At publishing time, Kavanaugh had thrown off nearly all doubt by showing his massive collection of Kenner Star Wars action figures, naming obscure characters like Malakili and IG-88 from memory.
:lol:
dx_37 wrote:
October 2nd, 2019, 12:12 pm
I would be all for a reset if I get to be on the reset team
"Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking."
- Bill Maher

"How you play the game is important. But for me, it's about if you win or lose."
- Derek Jeter

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic”