Kavanaugh Confirmation

[InVOLuntary]

It's so entertaining to watch these libs trying to do mental yoga to justify their disgusting, cheating, dishonest, party's actions.

 

[GAVol]

I think there's some conflation of issues here. The issue is not that he said unbecoming stuff in his yearbook, but that he's obviously lying about it NOW under OATH for an appointment to the SCOTUS. It's a strawman to argue that people are saying Kavanaugh should not be confirmed based on the content of the things he said in his yearbook.

You only call it a conflation because you've figured out an angle that you can rationalize as more dignified.... for now. You'll take the issue either way if it means your party wins.

 

[evillawyer]

And?

Do you want me to draw you a picture with crayons? Lying under oath to the Senate is a felony. Should people who commit felonies when interviewing for a job be rewarded by receiving the job?

 

[volbeast33]

Good read

How We Know Kavanaugh Is Lying | Current Affairs

That is nonsense

 

[85SugarVol]

yep. But a thorough investigation would decrease that possibility. K should be screaming for an investigation if he is innocent.

Pretty sure he did scream at DiFi

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Do you want me to draw you a picture with crayons? Lying under oath to the Senate is a felony. Should people who commit felonies when interviewing for a job be rewarded by receiving the job?

Are you sure you want to stand by your stance here? So lying to federal officials is a felony right?

 

[evillawyer]

It's so entertaining to watch these libs trying to do mental yoga to justify their disgusting, cheating, dishonest, party's actions.

Premise, premise, conclusion is "trying to do mental yoga"? That's alright, you're in Kavanaugh's private language camp, so I know you probably use that term to mean "coherent rational argument."

 

[Orange_Crush]

You've typed two posts that each took longer than it would have to just answer the question. I get it.

The question is a fallacy that's trying to save face for you. Your logic is that it is always immoral in some way to drive a car. Your original assertion was that it becomes immoral one mph above the speed limit. As so often happens with you because you you don't actually try to arrive at truth, but instead try to win internet arguments, your logic has morphed unthinkingly.

I will repeat myself. It becomes immoral when it reaches the point of *reckless* endangerment. That is a much different thing than, "it's always a teensy bit dangerous" so tell me exactly when it becomes immoral... It becomes immoral when you are no longer under reasonable and save control of your vehicle.

That's a stupid argument that isn't searching for anything other than a life preserved after you've made yourself look an idiot.

I refuse to play your stupid game of answering stupid questions that have no answer and don't have anything to do with the original debate.

 

[85SugarVol]

Luther and EL obviously have very little knowledge on how the burden of proof actually exists in the real world. Only in their bizzaro world does the one making the claim NOT have to prove anything.

That’s exactly what they are saying. “Job interview”

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Are you asking how lying under oath makes someone unfit to be a supreme court justice?

You have made it perfectly clear that your understanding of these issues and this process is severely lacking. You have sunk yourself.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

That’s exactly what they are saying. “Job interview”

I know. But its a farce. In what world does a job interview require someone to prove their innocence for something they have been accused of?

 

[evillawyer]

You have made it perfectly clear that your understanding of these issues and this process is severely lacking. You have sunk yourself.

What issues and processes have I misunderstood?

 

[NorthDallas40]

They don't. I've tried explaining this in a variety of ways. They're just being stubborn. Scotch Irish folk. Watcha gonna do?

Nope we’re not buying the crap you’re selling.

 

[NorthDallas40]

F em guys theyre just trolling for replies

 

[Weezer]

lol....not at all
He's going on the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. Not applicable in a job interview.

Only more than a "job interview" has been effected. Kavanaugh's life, the lives of his wife and children, have all been turned upside down. Do you have enough imagination to put yourself in his shoes? The MSM is certainly not giving him the benefit of the doubt. Most of their coverage paints him as guilty though zero proof exists. Calling this "just a job interview" is ludicrous. Job interviews happen behind closed doors. They're not broadcast across the country, not to mention most job interviewers aren't interested in behavior you MIGHT have engaged in 36 years ago while in high school.

When you look at Kavanaugh's resume, his professional accomplishments, is he qualified for the job? If this is "just a job interview", then what he MIGHT have done as a child has little to no bearing to what he HAS done as an adult professional.

 

[Squints]

Do you want me to draw you a picture with crayons? Lying under oath to the Senate is a felony. Should people who commit felonies when interviewing for a job be rewarded by receiving the job?

Conversely, should a political pawn, who lied under oath, be allowed to get filthy rich, then walk away after her services are no longer needed, free of reprimand?

This cuts both ways.

You keep mentioning straw men -- hell, you’ve fashioned enough of them over this case, that no damn varmint in West TN would dare get within a 10-mile radius of any cotton, corn or bean field.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

What issues and processes have I misunderstood?

So this is a job interview? Yet he has been accused of a crime. Kavanaugh has denied it. So why are we moving forward with this crap? Especially since, you know, this isnt a trial.

 

[85SugarVol]

Still curious as to how anyone is going to PROVE that K was lying about his definition of Devil’s Triangle

 

[GAVol]

I know. But its a farce. In what world does a job interview require someone to prove their innocence for something they have been accused of?

The world where they lower the standard of proof to a subjective one they can achieve.

 

[GAVol]

Still curious as to how anyone is going to PROVE that K was lying about his definition of Devil’s Triangle

That's the thing. The goal had never been to prove anything. It's to throw enough at the wall to get 2 Republicans to lose their nerve.

 

[AirVol]

National Security expert has pinpointed the exact office from which 3 Republican Senators were doxxed. It came from the American terrorist Maxine Waters office and of course the psycho denied it.
Amazing that this corrupt piece of trash hasn’t been thrown out of Congress.

 

[GAVol]

National Security expert has pinpointed the exact office from which 3 Republican Senators were doxxed. It came from the American terrorist Maxine Waters office and of course the psycho denied it.
Amazing that this corrupt piece of trash hasn’t been thrown out of Congress.

Those pesky IP addresses....

 

[InVOLuntary]

Premise, premise, conclusion is "trying to do mental yoga"? That's alright, you're in Kavanaugh's private language camp, so I know you probably use that term to mean "coherent rational argument."

Was that your downward facing dog?

 

[AirVol]

Those pesky IP addresses....

Yep, looks like she would learn since her office has been caught before. I don’t think she cares, she thinks she’s teflon. Time for her to go.

 

[RockyTop85]

Criminal justice advocates need to strike while the iron is hot on pre-trial bail-bond reform.