U.S. Politics

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

Is it a job interview or a hearing, make your mind up...

It's a hearing to clean up various issues pertaining to a job. Don't be a pedant.

2 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

Not many job interviews are broadcast live on tv in a room filled with hundreds of people or have someone accusing you of doing something 30 years ago.

Not many jobs are lifetime appointments with the responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. If there is any doubt about his character (of which there are many, looking at the hearing) then he should be withdrawn. It's as simple as that.

He is supposed to be politically impartial as part of the Supreme Court, yet he spouted off about a Democrat conspiracy in his opening remarks.

He isn't fit for it. Simple.

And multiple people agree, including the American Bar Association. 

[LakotaDakota]

So if it was a criminal triaI in front of a judge/jury rather than a trial by Alyssa Milano does anyone actually think he would be found guilty of anything given that the "evidence/testimonies" would essentially be the same.

[StefanAVFC]

4 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

So if it was a criminal triaI in front of a judge/jury rather than a trial by Alyssa Milano does anyone actually think he would be found guilty of anything given that the "evidence/testimonies" would essentially be the same.

If it were a criminal trial, then it would removed from politics (by both sides) and I'd trust that appropriate witnesses would be interviewed and examined under oath. Proper research would be done to prove Kavanaugh perjured himself multiple times.

It didn't happen here but the Republican committee had no intention of doing so. And the FBI investigation is extremely limited too.

The entire thing is a sham.

Trump could nominate one of a multiple of other judges and they would be confirmed without a hiccup. 

Edited October 3, 2018 by StefanAVFC

[LakotaDakota]

I am not saying there are not questions about him to be answered but to not appoint him based soley on this incident/statement seems a bit of a jump.

If this is/was the sole deciding factor then make it a criminal trial & await the outcome. If he is deemed not guilty then he should be free to take up the role.

[StefanAVFC]

6 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

I am not saying there are not questions about him to be answered but to not appoint him based soley on this incident/statement seems a bit of a jump.

I totally agree. A he said/she said case where you only interview him and her is not good enough. However, it was the format of the hearing that made this happen. 5 mins per senator and only 'him' and 'her'. If the Republicans were interested in the truth (like it would be in a criminal trial) then there would be a full hearing with full witnesses. 

6 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

If this is/was the sole deciding factor then make it a criminal trial & await the outcome. If he is deemed not guilty then he should be free to take up the role.

However, my point is, he clearly isn't appropriate for this role. It's a LIFETIME appointment in one of the most important positions in America. Do you not think that the standard should be sky-high for that? not just 'there isn't enough evidence he did it, so we should appoint him'? You're fine with a bloke getting a job for 30 years on the back of that?

I watched the hearing. He doesn't have the temperament for it (crying, yelling, shouting), he perjured himself multiple times and he's hyper-partisan. 

Edited October 3, 2018 by StefanAVFC

[bickster]

19 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

So if it was a criminal triaI in front of a judge/jury rather than a trial by Alyssa Milano does anyone actually think he would be found guilty of anything given that the "evidence/testimonies" would essentially be the same.

If that was a trial then he perjured himself. He told multiple demonstrable lies and bearing in mind his interview is to be a lifetime judge in the highest court in the land, that's pretty serious

[StefanAVFC]

We're actually not that far apart.

It's just that your bar for a Supreme Court Justice is at 'probably didn't sexually assault somebody'.

[LakotaDakota]

It more just the celeb hysteria and politicized instant guilt that i don't like. Not a leftie luvvie then you're guilty regardless.

Do you think any of this would have happened if Obama had nominated him?

 

You have idiots like Scarlett Johansson leading marches and publicly slaughtering people over any allegation whist saying the following about her friend whose movies she is more than happy to appear in Woody Allen :

“I think it’s irresponsible to take a bunch of actors that will have a Google alert on and to suddenly throw their name into a situation that none of us could possibly knowingly comment on,” Johansson said. “That just feels irresponsible to me. It’s not like this is somebody that’s been prosecuted and found guilty of something, and you can then go, ‘I don’t support this lifestyle or whatever.’ I mean, it’s all guesswork. “I don’t know anything about it,” she went on. “It would be ridiculous for me to make any kind of assumption one way or the other. “

quoting variety, who are in turn quoting the guardian here if that is acceptable for you...

https://variety.com/2014/film/news/scarlett-johansson-speaks-out-on-woody-allen-abuse-controversy-its-all-guesswork-1201135650/

Edited October 3, 2018 by LakotaDakota

[StefanAVFC]

16 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

 Not a leftie luvvie then you're guilty regardless.

There it is. You're not actually responding to anything I've written about his conduct, the Republicans running the sham hearings or about his perjury. Easier to just throw around nonsense like 'lefty luvvie' isn't it?

16 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

Do you think any of this would have happened if Obama had nominated him?

Do you know what happened the last time Obama nominated a judge? Please read up on Merrick Garland.

Quote

On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Garland to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, to fill the vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia. The Senate refused to hold a hearing or vote on this nomination made during the last year of Obama's presidency, with the Republican majority insisting that the next elected President should fill the vacancy. Senate Republicans' unprecedented refusal to consider the nomination was highly controversial. Garland's nomination lasted 293 days and expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress.

On March 11, 2016, Senator Orrin Hatch, President pro tempore of the United States Senate and the most senior Republican Senator, predicted that President Obama would "name someone the liberal Democratic base wants" even though he "could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man."Five days later, on March 16, Obama formally nominated Garland to the then vacant post of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Senate Republicans (under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) refused to consider Garland's nomination, holding "no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever" on the nomination.The refusal was highly controversial, with some commentators saying the seat on the Court to which Garland was nominated was "stolen". Over 170,000 people signed a White House petition asking President Obama to independently appoint Garland to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Senate had waived its advise and consent role.[87] On November 17, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras threw out a lawsuit against Senator McConnell seeking to compel a vote on the nomination, finding that the plaintiff, who had simply alleged he was a voter, had no standing to sue.

Also, Trump already nominated a judge and none of this happened.

Edited October 3, 2018 by StefanAVFC

[StefanAVFC]

Pushing through a perjurer to the Supreme Court to own the Libs

[LakotaDakota]

no thoughts on this bit?

“I think it’s irresponsible to take a bunch of actors that will have a Google alert on and to suddenly throw their name into a situation that none of us could possibly knowingly comment on,” Johansson said. “That just feels irresponsible to me. It’s not like this is somebody that’s been prosecuted and found guilty of something, and you can then go, ‘I don’t support this lifestyle or whatever.’ I mean, it’s all guesswork. “I don’t know anything about it,” she went on. “It would be ridiculous for me to make any kind of assumption one way or the other. “

[bickster]

Just now, LakotaDakota said:

no thoughts on this bit?

“I think it’s irresponsible to take a bunch of actors that will have a Google alert on and to suddenly throw their name into a situation that none of us could possibly knowingly comment on,” Johansson said. “That just feels irresponsible to me. It’s not like this is somebody that’s been prosecuted and found guilty of something, and you can then go, ‘I don’t support this lifestyle or whatever.’ I mean, it’s all guesswork. “I don’t know anything about it,” she went on. “It would be ridiculous for me to make any kind of assumption one way or the other. “

How much is the cod?

[StefanAVFC]

Do you read anything responds to you or do you just keep throwing your opinions at us to see what sticks?

I have addressed your points one by one.

If we're playing this game, what are your thoughts on Kavanaugh's perjury? His conduct? The lack of witnesses interviewed by the panel? The 5 minute interview slots per senator? Kavanaugh's opening remarks of a Democrat conspiracy? His hyper-partisan nature? Merrick Garland? Neil Gorsuch? 

1 minute ago, LakotaDakota said:

“I think it’s irresponsible to take a bunch of actors that will have a Google alert on and to suddenly throw their name into a situation that none of us could possibly knowingly comment on,” Johansson said. “That just feels irresponsible to me. It’s not like this is somebody that’s been prosecuted and found guilty of something, and you can then go, ‘I don’t support this lifestyle or whatever.’ I mean, it’s all guesswork. “I don’t know anything about it,” she went on. “It would be ridiculous for me to make any kind of assumption one way or the other. “

I'm not sure on the relevance. I have stated twice now that the nature of a he said/she said case where only 'him' and 'her' are interviewed as witnesses isn't good enough here. I'm in agreement with you.

However:

1) The republicans are facilitating such a hearing and the Whitehouse is deliberately limiting the scope of the FBI investigation. If people actually gave a shit about the truth, they would explore every avenue to find it. But they don't.

2) This is no longer just about an accusation from 30+ years ago. it's about Kavanaugh as a person. I'm sorry but the bar for a lifelong position on the Supreme Court is miles higher than 'not enough evidence he didn't sexually assault someone'. It's about his conduct, behaviour, partisanship and so much more.

[snowychap]

27 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

It more just the celeb hysteria and politicized instant guilt that i don't like. Not a leftie luvvie then you're guilty regardless.

Do you think any of this would have happened if Obama had nominated him?

 

You have idiots like Scarlett Johansson leading marches and publicly slaughtering people over any allegation whist saying the following about her friend whose movies she is more than happy to appear in Woody Allen :

“I think it’s irresponsible to take a bunch of actors that will have a Google alert on and to suddenly throw their name into a situation that none of us could possibly knowingly comment on,” Johansson said. “That just feels irresponsible to me. It’s not like this is somebody that’s been prosecuted and found guilty of something, and you can then go, ‘I don’t support this lifestyle or whatever.’ I mean, it’s all guesswork. “I don’t know anything about it,” she went on. “It would be ridiculous for me to make any kind of assumption one way or the other. “

quoting variety, who are in turn quoting the guardian here if that is acceptable for you...

https://variety.com/2014/film/news/scarlett-johansson-speaks-out-on-woody-allen-abuse-controversy-its-all-guesswork-1201135650/

If someone with the history of Woody Allen were nominated as the next supreme court judge then I'd expect people to be very critical of the nomination and to weigh in against it, saying that he wasn't fit for the job.

[choffer]

54 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

You have idiots like Scarlett Johansson leading marches and publicly slaughtering people over any allegation whist saying the following about her friend whose movies she is more than happy to appear in Woody Allen

What crimes have Woody Allen committed (apart from Melinda and Melinda)?

[chrisp65]

13 minutes ago, choffer said:

What crimes have Woody Allen committed (apart from Melinda and Melinda)?

I don't think it was a 'crime' to be shagging your wife's adopted daughter and taking nudie pictures of her.

But it's certainly the kind of poor etiquette that means people suspect bad things of you.

 

[bickster]

27 minutes ago, choffer said:

What crimes have Woody Allen committed (apart from Melinda and Melinda)?

 

9 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I don't think it was a 'crime' to be shagging your wife's adopted daughter and taking nudie pictures of her.

But it's certainly the kind of poor etiquette that means people suspect bad things of you.

 

Actually he's been accused of sexual assault against one of Mia Farrows daughters, not the adopted asian one, one of her actual daughters

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

 

Actually he's been accused of sexual assault against one of Mia Farrows daughters, not the adopted asian one, one of her actual daughters

yeah I was avoiding 'accusations' as that was the potential trap, he could be wholly innocent, it's an allegation he denies

 

There's absolutely no doubt he was taking nudie pics of his step daughter, 35 years his junior, he's admitted it.

 

He wouldn't make the cut in my social circles, and they're a random old bunch.

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

yeah I was avoiding 'accusations' as that was the potential trap, he could be wholly innocent, it's an allegation he denies

 

There's absolutely no doubt he was taking nudie pics of his step daughter, 35 years his junior, he's admitted it.

 

He wouldn't make the cut in my social circles, and they're a random old bunch.

Nor mine

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, LakotaDakota said:

Is it a job interview or a hearing, make your mind up...

You have no idea what happened at the time and nobody ever will.

He said, she said of the highest order.

Not many job interviews are broadcast live on tv in a room filled with hundreds of people or have someone accusing you of doing something 30 years ago.

Not many job interviews are for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, and not many interviewees, even for that position, have been credibly accused of sexual assault.