It's not a new one, Mags.  I've pointed out your tunnel vision a few times before.  And, you're displaying it again now.

My objections to Kavanaugh are not associated with my opinions of Trump.  The self-identified Democrats and liberals here at Mock have also stated their reasons for opposing Kavanaugh, which are not tied to Trump.

No one here argued against the confirmation of Trump-nominated Justice Neil Gorsuch.  He is qualified, no doubt about it.  

We're all aware that when you have a President who's conservative (or, in this case, one who promised to deliver from a list of conservative judges)..........you're gonna get conservative Supreme Court Justice nominations and confirmations.  That's how it works and that's a big part of why elections matter.

As MS (a conservative) said upthread, Trump has a long list of qualified and less controversial conservative judges who would stand a much better chance of confirmation than Kavanaugh. McConnell advised Trump of such before the nominee was selected.

It seems to me that your demeaning of Dr. Ford (before you ever heard from her), your opposition to a standard supplemental FBI check (which I think can only help Kavanaugh if he's being honest), and your claims of a conspiracy are based on your full loyalty to President Trump in all matters. That's why you view this as all about Trump when it's not.

In reality, every President who's had the opportunity to nominate Supreme Court Justices has faced the same process.

The bar for the Supreme Court is very high; the nominees are subject to a very high degree of scrutiny. And that's a very good thing for the country.

There is a long list of Supreme Court Justice nominations which were rejected or withdrawn due to concerns about the nominees' personal conduct, political/professional bias, or other controversy.

Supreme Court nominees who never served on the Court (name, year, President, status)

Robert Harrison, 1789, Washington, Declined
Levi Lincoln Sr., 1811, Madison, Declined
Alexander Wolcott, 1811,Madison, Rejected, 9–24
John Quincy Adams, 1811, Madison, Declined
John J. Crittenden, 1828, J. Q. Adams, Postponed
William Smith, 1837, Jackson, Declined
John C. Spencer, 1844, Tyler, Rejected, 21–26
Reuben H. Walworth, 1844, Tyler, Withdrawn
Edward King, 1845, Tyler, Withdrawn
John M. Read, 1845, Tyler, No action
George W. Woodward, 1845, Polk, Rejected, 20–29
Edward A. Bradford, 1852, Fillmore, No action
George E. Badger, 1853, Fillmore,Postponed
William C. Micou , 1853, Fillmore, No action
Jeremiah S. Black, 1861, Buchanan, Rejected, 25–26
Henry Stanbery, 1866, A. Johnson, Nullified
Ebenezer R. Hoar, 1869, Grant, Rejected, 24–33
Caleb Cushing, 1874, Grant, Withdrawn
Roscoe Conkling, 1882, Arthur, Declined
William B. Hornblower, 1893, Cleveland, Rejected, 24–30
Wheeler Hazard Peckham,1894, Cleveland, Rejected, 32–41
John J. Parker, 1930, Hoover, Rejected, 39–41
Homer Thornberry, 1968, L. B. Johnson, Nullified
Clement Haynsworth, 1969, Nixon, Rejected, 45–55
G. Harrold Carswell, 1970, Nixon, Rejected, 45–51
Robert H. Bork, 1987, Reagan, Rejected, 42–58
Harriet Miers, 2005, G. W. Bush, Withdrawn
Merrick Garland, 2016, Obama, No action

You can read about the reasons they were not confirmed here, if you're interested:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pr...pointments

I'm sincerely interested, Mags.  Aside from President Trump telling you that he no longer supports  Kavanaugh and pulling the nomination...........what would YOU consider characteristics, words or actions that would disqualify Kavanaugh from serving for life on the Supreme Court of the United States?

I watched it and he didn't handle himself well at all. Whether the accusations are true or not, you shouldn't conduct yourself like a crying, sniveling jackass for having to answer some questions about your character when you're a candidate for a supreme court judge. I expect something a little more professional from the people appointed to run the fucking country. At least Trump can keep from crying for fuck's sake.

I actually liked his response to the alcohol, however. He said he drank beer then and he still likes beer now. Seemed very sincere to me.

What percent of the population is Republican, pretty much 90% that do vote had to vote for him for him to be elected. The only Republicans I know about that "relapse" him are the entrenched ones whose power was usurped by his overwhelming victory.

"overwhelming victory"  

(09-29-2018, 01:58 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(09-29-2018, 04:46 AM)Duchess Wrote: Had a woman been in his position and sat there and cried & shouted angrily there are a few of you who would have adamantly proclaimed she was too emotional for the job.

No doubt about it.

How many times have we seen this meme disparagingly posted by men over the years?  Some of those male posters being the same ones who are now so thoroughly sensitive and offended that Kavanaugh's full-on rant is being criticized and mocked?  



^ She didn't meltdown.  Didn't refuse to answer questions.  No tears.  Just frustration at answering the same question for the millionth time. And, she was accused of being an incompetent liar and in some cases a murderer. 

On a positive note, I've read and heard a lot of comments by men who were far too secure and intelligent to presume that Christine Ford was a bimbo, or to demean her professional credentials, or to insist that she must be a whack job or a liar.  

I think Dr. Ford demonstrated on Thursday that the insecure men who did make such ignorant presumptions were wrong (though I doubt they'd admit it).

Hillary the sociopath is your Gold Standard? Brilliant. Hillary is a Career Criminal and a sociopath. The fact that she is ice cold and that has nothing to do with her gender or her politics. She is hardly the best person to try to make such a point. Perhaps you could try making a point that should respect women like Harvey Weinstein. That would be equally as well made as this point you are trying to make.

(09-29-2018, 05:50 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: As MS (a conservative) said upthread, Trump has a long list of qualified and less controversial conservative judges who would stand a much better chance of confirmation than Kavanaugh. McConnell advised Trump of such before the nominee was selected.

It seems to me that your demeaning of Dr. Ford (before you ever heard from her), your opposition to a standard supplemental FBI check (which I think can only help Kavanaugh if he's being honest), and your claims of a conspiracy are based on your full loyalty to President Trump in all matters. That's why you view this as all about Trump when it's not.

In reality, every President who's had the opportunity to nominate Supreme Court Justices has faced the same process.

The bar for the Supreme Court is very high; the nominees are subject to a very high degree of scrutiny. And that's a very good thing for the country.

There is a long list of Supreme Court Justice nominations which were rejected or withdrawn due to concerns about the nominees' personal conduct, political/professional bias, or other controversy.

Yes you are NOT saying that the "stakes" with Gorsuch were as high for Democrats as they are now and therefore the efforts by the Dems were not as high. You are NOT trying for that RIDICULOUS false equivalence are you?

Kavenaugh was a boy scout. He was all of the things that made him a great fit for Trump BUT by direct reflection the Democrats saw him as a threat to Roe vs Wade. It was all they talked about until Ford came along, so let's not pretend that he was the same threat. He was the one to tip the scales in the Supreme Court. No more swinging vote.

If Kavenaugh is defeated AND the Democrats win the Midterms Trump gets no more Supreme Court pick of his choice. The Democrats have proven what they are prepared to do defeat ANY Supreme Court pick. If Kavenaugh is defeated and Democrats don't win the midterms do you believe that his next pick or the one after will unchallenged or do you think they will say "Well last time worked a treat and it did with Roy Moore. Let's keep these life-destroying unproven allegations coming". That is Democrats now.

He will have to pick a woman next.

I have a great idea!!!!!   

I don't know why you attempt to change what I posted when my points/posts are perfectly clear FryGuy.

Your repeated defense/embrace of Roy Moore is telling and odd. Then again, so is your habit of insisting you've got the real 411 when you clearly have no grasp of even the basic readily-accessible facts.

Like these (paraphrased) gems from your bag of bullshit, for example: "Michael Flynn was National Security Adviser when he secretly talked to Russians about ignoring sanctions." "Background investigations for federally-nominated candidates isn't even under FBI jurisidiction." "Three million votes is about the same as 3 votes." "Baker is testifying against Comey".

There are plenty more, those are just off the top of my head. Point being: I don't take seriously political opinions presented as fact, especially when they're based on ignorance and conspiracy theory.

Regarding the hypocrisy and double standard I highlighted using the Clinton meme, it wasn't a false equivalency when I posted it yesterday and it's not now simply because you insist that it is FryGuy.

For years, some male posters have posted that meme to depict her as shrill, over-emotional, angry, and self-centered when she was testifying under oath.

Now, when your man is being criticized for testimony which truly epitomizes loud, over-emotional, self-centered, and angry......some of you have pulled a full  Kavanaugh -- indignantly demanding apologies to your man and his family and attempting to chastise other posters for criticizing his performance. 

The SNL spoof of Kavanaugh's testimony was pretty funny.



But, this Pulp Fiction / Kavanaugh mash-up was even funnier to me.

I congratulate Maria Gallagher who reached out to Sen. Jeff Flake and I commend him for listening and doing the right thing.

(09-30-2018, 12:21 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I don't know why you attempt to change what I posted when my points/posts are perfectly clear FryGuy.

Your repeated defense/embrace of Roy Moore is telling and odd. Then again, so is your habit of insisting you've got the real 411 when you clearly have no grasp of even the basic readily-accessible facts.

Like these (paraphrased) gems from your bag of bullshit, for example: "Michael Flynn was National Security Adviser when he secretly talked to Russians about ignoring sanctions." "Background investigations for federally-nominated candidates isn't even under FBI jurisidiction." "Three million votes is about the same as 3 votes." "Baker is testifying against Comey".

There are plenty more, those are just off the top of my head. Point being: I don't take seriously political opinions presented as fact, especially when they're based on ignorance and conspiracy theory.

And I don't know why you try so very desperately to rewrite what I have said. Roy Moore is probably as crazy as a loon and could have been a terrible Senator. I have never once "embraced him and so you are dishonest from the get go. Having said that the accused who came out and in the same style as this fiasco, had "evidence" that under scrutiny fell apart/had holes you could walk through. Hell the signature was fraudulent and proven that it was copied from court records and yet the Left then said "but the body of it is genuine". Then there was the lady they interviewed who used to work there who clearly stated that because of the rosters/opening hours and general set up that the assault could not have happened.

What happened after convincing just enough people he was guilty? Well he lost the vote (which is what they wanted all along). Then the girl and the allegations were forgotten and every went happily into the sunset.
Roy Moore could be the biggest dickhead God ever breathed life into and yet still this was a travesty. Now there are some who say "Ends justify the means". Whilst I am not of the same mind and do not think those that get to choose either the ends or the means are the ones that should be making such decisions, at least they are honest in saying so.
People like you, Snowflake are ideologues who will not even be that honest. You dishonestly rewrite my critique of ideologues like you and your collectivist friends as me having any particular leanings towards, support or intimacy with Roy Moore. It is dishonest and always was but keep doing it by all means.

Paraphrased is right of course, There in lies the rub. I did not say anything of the sort, bar the last statement which is true. But I will hold you to that when Comey if it comes to light that James Baker testified against him. Test my memory when it happens.

So why is it do you lie and lie so easily, Snowflake? Is it like a Tourette thing. You have a neurological twitch, type lies and hit send?

(09-30-2018, 12:23 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Regarding the hypocrisy and double standard I highlighted using the Clinton meme, it wasn't a false equivalency when I posted it yesterday and it's not now simply because you insist that it is FryGuy.

For years, some male posters have posted that meme to depict her as shrill, over-emotional, angry, and self-centered when she was testifying under oath.

Now, when your man is being criticized for testimony which truly epitomizes loud, over-emotional, self-centered, and angry......some of you have pulled a full  Kavanaugh -- indignantly demanding apologies to your man and his family and attempting to chastise other posters for criticizing his performance. 

"For years, some male posters have posted that meme to depict her as shrill, over-emotional, angry, and self-centered when she was testifying under oath." Indeed but have some women posted her as shrill, over-emotional, angry, and self-centered when she was testifying under oath? They have. So ....some people. So that is what you meant isn't it Snowflake? Some people have represented Hillary that way. And?

Oh sorry I was not playing along. Your first step in setting up the strawman was me agreeing that it was only some men because this is apparently a gendered thing and as a fellow woman and sharing all the same body parts as Hillary Rotten Clinton, you are equally as oppressed by any words men say to her as a fellow woman. Attacking her was a gendered attack because she was a woman and only men attacked her because they represented all men and their attacks were therefore without merit because they were all sexist, misogynist and Hell likely transphobic as well....the Nazis. That is kind of how it goes right? But wait there is more in the dishonest representations ...let's read on.

"Now when your man"

That did not take long. "My man". Is he someone I elected? Is he someone that works for me? Someone that I have some financial arrangement with? Someone I have met? Someone I have ANY connection with?

Problem with Strawman arguments isn't it Snowflake? Soon as you need to explain them, they start looking a little ridiculous and dishonest, but then, that is you all over isn't it, Snowflake?

"being criticized for testimony which truly epitomizes loud, over-emotional, self-centered, and angry......some of you have pulled a full  Kavanaugh -- indignantly demanding apologies to your man and his family and attempting to chastise other posters for criticizing his performance.  "

Why yes Snowflake. But then what has this got to do with Hillary? Well not a lot really but that is because your strawman did not cross the finish line under examination because you are intellectually dishonest and a hare-brained ideologue BUT I will do my best to connect your dots in your trainwreck of a narrative. (Paraphrased...see I can do it too)

"Well Hillary Clinton got people criticising her for hours and hours about why she let people die in Benghazi and not send support as requested, and what difference does it make? She is a woman and then some meany men called her bad names online. And you are a man and online and have said mean things about her, you may have even said the same things about her as they said. Irrespective, she was only attacked by men, and the basis for her being attacked, is because she is a woman. Kavenaugh is a man and because you are a man, he is your man and you show solidarity to him because he is a man and therefore he is your man in the same way all men favour all men over all women. Kavenaugh is being accused by a lady that has no evidence of what she accuses Kavenaugh of. Because of the effect this has had on his family and himself he has been emotional. Ha ha. See, see! He is a man and he was emotional and because I am a woman it is my turn to be shitty towards him as every man was towards poor Hillary.
You do not think that is fair and condemned me because now YOU are emotional and crying like your man Kavenaugh. Ha ha, See, See.
Men can't take it when their lives are destroyed and other men who only favour those destroyed men are only doing so because they are sharing the same body parts. Go Woman power! You men are all part of the Patriarchy.
Pussy Hats for all!!!! (But not you men)"

At least I think that was the gist.

PS this is a little something for your ridiculous own gender preference assumptions

https://www.apa.org/monitor/dec04/women.aspx

(09-30-2018, 03:40 PM)Ski at 1SKY6 Wrote: I congratulate Maria Gallagher who reached out to Sen. Jeff Flake and I commend him for listening and doing the right thing.

Yes they obviously are big believers in a person being innocent before proven guilty and I have no doubt if the FBI investigation finds nothing, they will say "Sorry about that presumption, old chap. Don't mind us, we believed your accuser based on her anatomy and based on no evidence, and smeared you."

The Scope of the FBI Supplemental Background Check

Unsurprisingly, the scope of the supplemental FBI background check into Kavanaugh is a matter of contention and confusion.

Trump announced on Twitter late Saturday that the White House had placed no limitation on the FBI's ability to investigate the allegations against Kavanaugh.  "I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion," Trump tweeted in response to an NBC News report citing multiple people familiar with the process who said the White House was limiting the scope of the reopened background investigation of Kavanaugh.

However, The New York Times reported Saturday night, after Trump’s tweet, that the White House has only authorized the FBI to interview six people: 

1. Dr. Ford
2.  Judge Kavanaugh
3.  Mark Judge (Kavanaugh's buddy who was allegedly in the room)
4.  Leland Keyser (Ford's high school friend whom Ford said attended the party but was not told of the assault)
5. P.J. Smyth (another alleged party guest)
6.  Deborah Ramirez (Kavanaugh's Yale classmate and second accuser)

(continued)

Not on the list is the third accuser, Michael Avenatti's client Julie Swetnick.  

Also not on the list are the former classmates (some of whom supported Kavanaugh's nomination) who have come forward to say that Kavanaugh lied under oath about the heavy extent of his drinking in college.

I don't really care if Kavanaugh drank like a fish back then, but I do care if he bald-face lied about it over and over under oath and if he still drinks heavily today.  I hope that's looked into.  

In 2016, Judge Kavanaugh wrote a case supporting the use of lie detectors in background checks.  I'd sure like to see him agree to take one in regards to the sexual assault allegations. But, I bet he won't.

Ref:  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politic...tt-n915061

(09-30-2018, 03:40 PM)Ski at 1SKY6 Wrote: I congratulate Maria Gallagher who reached out to Sen. Jeff Flake and I commend him for listening and doing the right thing.

That was a powerful encounter, for sure.

I've read a lot of comments by people who say Jeff Flake didn't do enough and should have voted 'no' on Kavanugh instead of pushing to delay the vote until a supplemental FBI background investigation was completed. 

But, I agree with you.  Even though he's retiring from the Senate, Flake (who's rumored to be considering a Presidential run) has to face his constituents in a red district.  It was a bold move on his part and he did it for the right reasons despite the repercussions to himself.