ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brett Kavanaugh , Christine Blasey Ford , Congressional hearings , Supreme Court nominees , Trump controversies

Closed Thread
Old 7th September 2018, 01:19 PM   #321
ahhell
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,749
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Actually, the main problem is that McConnell ****** up the nomination process by refusing to do his job with regards to Garland.
While this probably feeds the oppositions some, this sort of thing has been ratcheting up for decades.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I disagree. I think Kavanaugh would be getting exactly the same pushback if he'd been nominated by any Republican president.

If he'd been nominated by a Democrat? Not so much. Of course, a Democrat wouldn't have nominated him. Which is to say, Kavanaugh's main problem is that Hillary Clinton will never be president.
I don't think it would be exactly the same. The Garland BS really kicked up the animus over the supreme court to eleven.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 01:22 PM   #322
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,320
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Actually, the main problem is that McConnell ****** up the nomination process by refusing to do his job with regards to Garland.
You believe if Garland had received approval the same basic thing wouldn't be happening now? I don't.

I agree with statement from ahhell "While this probably feeds the oppositions some, this sort of thing has been ratcheting up for decades. "

Last edited by eeyore1954; 7th September 2018 at 01:23 PM.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 01:51 PM   #323
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,420
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
You believe if Garland had received approval the same basic thing wouldn't be happening now? I don't.

I agree with statement from ahhell "While this probably feeds the oppositions some, this sort of thing has been ratcheting up for decades. "
They always forget Bork.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 02:08 PM   #324
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,151
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
While this probably feeds the oppositions some, this sort of thing has been ratcheting up for decades.

I don't think it would be exactly the same. The Garland BS really kicked up the animus over the supreme court to eleven.
Remember Robert Bork? The animus has always been at war with Eastasia.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 02:23 PM   #325
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,787
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
When hopes and dreams go up in smoke. Hillary in a landslide
I love how some conservatives only have that one victory to cling to in an administration fraught with disaster and failure.

It's a mantra you'll be repeating 5 electoral cycles from now.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 02:32 PM   #326
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,420
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I love how some conservatives only have that one victory to cling to in an administration fraught with disaster and failure.

It's a mantra you'll be repeating 5 electoral cycles from now.
"He may be the worst occupant of the Oval Office ever, but ha ha, we won and got him in there! Take that!"
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 03:10 PM   #327
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,658
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I disagree. I think Kavanaugh would be getting exactly the same pushback if he'd been nominated by any Republican president.

If he'd been nominated by a Democrat? Not so much. Of course, a Democrat wouldn't have nominated him. Which is to say, Kavanaugh's main problem is that Hillary Clinton will never be president.

I don't think any other Republican president would have nominated him either.

The entire line of reasoning that 'the Dems only want it done the way it always was because of politics' and 'the Dems would oppose any nominee just as much' is being employed as red-herrings and well poisoning. Those kinds of accusation don't even matter if they are true or false; what matters is if the arguments the Dems are making are true and relevant or not.

Either you find the objections, evidence, and reasoning true and relevant on their own merits, or you don't. That the Democrats are the ones making them is only important if you (general you) place party over country, principle, and reasoning.

Which is exactly why everyone keeps dodge the question I've been asking. It isn't the only relevant question, but it's damn important. How about you theprestige? Would you still support Kavanaugh if perjury (on salient judicial issues as has been alleged) is proven? Do you at least entertain the possibility that he is unsuitable regardless of the motivations of those arguing he is unsuitable?
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 03:29 PM   #328
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,389
Say, the women's march leader who was leading the charge for protesting the nomination hearing through its paid protesters does not think much of Jews.

"Sarsour: American Muslims Shouldn’t ‘Humanize’ Israelis"

http://jewishjournal.com/online/2385...nize-israelis/

So Hamas is against Kavanaugh too.
__________________
"Don't tell me what cases you've won, tell me who you've beaten."

-M. Avenatti
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 04:17 PM   #329
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 14,913
Dunno how many encountered the drama with his assistant Zina Bash flashing a "White Power" sign at the hearings.

https://nypost.com/2018/09/04/conspi...-rages-online/

First time, was just an apparently random gesture. I figured it was just people overreacting to create outrage, especially considering the "white power" sign originated as a 4chan hoax, which was eventually back-adopted, that is, picked up and used for real by white nationalists (who were clearly not smart enough to realize they were being hoaxed).

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kavanau...d-defends-her/

Her response to that, do the same thing but make it far more unambiguous. I guess people weren't over-reacting at all. Either that, or she's just trolling at this point, which is the more plausible explanation.

https://www.sourcepolitics.com/repub...one-day-later/
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 04:17 PM   #330
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,477
Yeah. I've heard republicans whining, "Why do democrats want the documents? They've already decided they are going to vote no."

So making up your mind ahead of time is bad? Ok, what if the documents show he perjured himself. Will republicans change their mind and vote no?

If yes, then that's a reason for the dems to want the documents. And if no, own your lack of standards.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 05:32 PM   #331
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,186
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Her response to that, do the same thing but make it far more unambiguous. I guess people weren't over-reacting at all. Either that, or she's just trolling at this point, which is the more plausible explanation.
I’m sure it was trolling the second time. She isn’t a white power person.

And really, the OK hand gesture should revert to meaning just that. But it won’t revert to meaning only that if people freak out every time they see it. So maybe instead of thinking of it as trolling, it should be thought of as desensitization therapy.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 05:46 PM   #332
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,973
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
....
I don't think it would be exactly the same. The Garland BS really kicked up the animus over the supreme court to eleven.
And that made the hypocritical rant by Graham even more disgusting when he opined on how all these nominees should be getting 90 votes while Graham never once mentioned Garland. He even repeated the excuse, waiting for the election was reasonable, ignoring the fact Obama was elected.

How to be incredibly tone deaf.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 05:52 PM   #333
BrooklynBaby
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 816
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
"He may be the worst occupant of the Oval Office ever, but ha ha, we won and got him in there! Take that!"
It's the economy, silly.
BrooklynBaby is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 05:58 PM   #334
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 10,821
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
The idea that someone would offer to pay money for legal fees for committing acts of political violence is absolutely disgusting. As I hope TBD would agree.

Oops, that was Trump offering legal fees for his supporters violent acts!

https://www.google.com/search?q=trum...=silk&ie=UTF-8
To be fair no one believed Trump.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 06:12 PM   #335
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 41,534
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
The idea that someone would offer to pay money for legal fees for committing acts of political violence is absolutely disgusting. As I hope TBD would agree.

Oops, that was Trump offering legal fees for his supporters violent acts!

https://www.google.com/search?q=trum...=silk&ie=UTF-8
COmes down to the same thing, really.
And as for TBD agreeing, I doubt it. If Dear Leader does it, it must be right since Dear Leader is incapable of doing wrong.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 10:00 PM   #336
Bogative
Graduate Poster
 
Bogative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,079
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Trump also promised that he would only nominate off of the list he was given when he was a candidate; he lied. Lied right to the GOP because Kavanaugh was NOT on that list.
"We’re going to have great judges, conservative, all picked by the Federalist Society" is what he said. Kavanaugh was one of the judges from the second list by the Federalist Society.

Quote:
Kavanaugh's bizarre belief that presidents shouldn't even be investigated should be a disqualifier for much of the GOP as well. How do you impeach a president you can't investigate? It's a frankly contemptibly stupid reading of the Constitution (note that I am still unclear on his exact legal support for that opinion as what he offers in support is not based in law).
This is a lie started by Chuck Schumer, picked up and repeated by many news outlets and is now considered gospel by those who want to believe Kavanaugh was nominated to keep Trump from potentially being prosecuted for crimes in the future.

He was referring to civil and criminal investigations, not congressional investigations. Meaning that if you want to prosecute a president civilly or criminally, first impeach him, remove him from office then investigate.


"In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we should not burden a sitting president with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions. The president’s job is difficult enough as is. And the country loses when the president’s focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution." – Brett Kavanaugh

Last edited by Bogative; 7th September 2018 at 10:02 PM.
Bogative is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 11:23 PM   #337
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,949
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
....
He was referring to civil and criminal investigations, not congressional investigations. Meaning that if you want to prosecute a president civilly or criminally, first impeach him, remove him from office then investigate.
....
That's exactly what it means. So he thinks a president should be exempt from all civil and criminal investigations, let alone prosecutions, no matter what he may have done in office or before he took office.

Why? Why should that be the case? Where does the Constitution exempt this one person -- alone among all Americans -- from the ordinary processes of law? Impeachment is the mechanism by which he can be removed from office for misconduct in office. It doesn't have anything to do with investigation and prosecution for crimes, including crimes that may have put him in office in the first place.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 12:32 AM   #338
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,073
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
I don't think it would be exactly the same. The Garland BS really kicked up the animus over the supreme court to eleven.
Repubs were claiming it was normal not to consider a Supreme Court pick in a election year. Except that Dems & Repubs UNANIMOUSLY confirmed Reagan's Kennedy choice in 1988, during a presidential election year.

Maybe Reagan's picks weren't such political hacks? Though he did nominate Bork (who my father testified for!). After another unsuccessful pick (Douglas Ginsburg, no relation to Ruth) he nominated ... Anthony Kennedy. At no time did Democrats categorically vow to block Reagan's picks and I think by all accounts Kennedy was a solid pick.

It's one reason I don't overly lionize McCain; not to take away from the man but he was part of that obstructionist BS that categorically refused to consider *any* Obama pick in 2016.

Last edited by Minoosh; 8th September 2018 at 01:06 AM. Reason: Clarifying Douglas Ginsburg; no relation to Ruth
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 12:59 AM   #339
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,073
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
You believe if Garland had received approval the same basic thing wouldn't be happening now? I don't.
Well for one thing, it would have filled the spot later given to Neil Gorsuch, meaning Trump would have had only one pick. Which now gives us Kavanaugh and higher stakes for a court (quite possibly) overpacked by partisans.

Here's a clue from the politic site Bustle, about what Grouch said about Garland in 2002:

Neil Gorsuch Speaks Out About Merrick Garland For The First Time

Quote:
Gorsuch wrote a column praising Garland as an "impressive" judge who was "grossly mistreated" by the Senate for having the courage to rule on "hot-button" issues. So, where does he stand now that he's the beneficiary of that kind of mistreatment? He isn't as straightforward about his views now — at least when it comes to partisan political matters — as he was back then.
There is a cumulative effect to various obstructionist tacks.

Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
I agree with statement from ahhell "While this probably feeds the oppositions some, this sort of thing has been ratcheting up for decades. "
But that is the whole point. As it got ratcheted up it became more and more skewed to a process that may be overly political. On the other hand, Obama got to pick Kagan (2010) and Sotomayor (2009) while Bill Clinton gave us Ginsburg (1993). So perhaps the process isn't totally ... borked. And after all Roberts (Bush 2005) turned out to be at least somewhat moderate on social issues (if not campaign finance issues).

I could easily have gotten a few details wrong here; I hope not, but my point is that arguably the process has deteriorated in a way to potentially distort the court's makeup for decades to come. (Though I'm not sure I completely agree; justices often show a feisty, independent streak once they're enrobed).

While you may agree with ahhell about the "ratcheting up," I believe he was talking about Republicans doing the ratcheting to the detriment of a more civil, or at least bipartisan, approach in earlier decades. Though I agree that it has been politicized for decades, not some nice collegial gathering of senators modesty providing advice and consent, and that Dems have certainly contributed to this (Thomas, George HW Bush, 1990).

Last edited by Minoosh; 8th September 2018 at 01:05 AM. Reason: slight clarification, amplification
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 01:17 AM   #340
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,073
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
And that made the hypocritical rant by Graham even more disgusting when he opined on how all these nominees should be getting 90 votes while Graham never once mentioned Garland. He even repeated the excuse, waiting for the election was reasonable, ignoring the fact Obama was elected.

How to be incredibly tone deaf.
I don't know what's up with Graham. Maybe he is shoring up home state support. Maybe he is sucking up to Trump with the idea that he can somehow influence him, contain him. He has not hesitated to speak his mind in the past (dissing both Trump and Cruz), and I'm positive he was absolutely gutted by John McCain's death, and he joined McCain in criticizing the "skinny repeal" gutting of Obamacare. He does have an independent streak. But ultimately he is on the Trump train now, and is very much on board with most if not all of the current Republican agenda.

Last edited by Minoosh; 8th September 2018 at 01:19 AM.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 02:59 AM   #341
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,989
Lisa Graves, who authored some of the memos that Kavanaugh looked at after they were stolen, opines that there is now enough evidence of perjury that he should be impeached
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 04:18 AM   #342
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,989
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/sta...47446914920449

Quote:
Ex-Nixon White House Counsel John Dean: "Under Judge Kavanaugh's recommendation, if a president shot somebody in cold blood on Fifth Avenue, that president could not be prosecuted while in office." (via
ABC)
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 04:22 AM   #343
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,989
Former associate David Brock claims Kavanaugh has been heavily involved in leaking information
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 04:58 AM   #344
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,491
The never Cavanaugh's will be just as successful as the never Trumper's
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 05:14 AM   #345
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,989
Who's Cavanaugh? And the never Trumper's what?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 06:20 AM   #346
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,151
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
COmes down to the same thing, really.
And as for TBD agreeing, I doubt it. If Dear Leader does it, it must be right since Dear Leader is incapable of doing wrong.
Trump makes a disgusting suggestion.

The left carries it out.

"But whatabout Trump?!"
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 07:12 AM   #347
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,949
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post

That's not the worst David Brock says about him:

Quote:
Both Ted and Brett had what one could only be called an unhealthy obsession with the Clintons — especially Hillary. While Ted was pushing through the Arkansas Project conspiracy theories claiming that Clinton White House lawyer and Hillary friend Vincent Foster was murdered (he committed suicide), Brett was costing taxpayers millions by pedaling the same garbage at Starr's office.

A detailed analysis of Kavanaugh's own notes from the Starr Investigation reveals he was cherry-picking random bits of information from the Starr investigation — as well as the multiple previous investigations — attempting vainly to legitimize wild right-wing conspiracies. For years he chased down each one of them without regard to the emotional cost to Foster’s family and friends, or even common decency.

Kavanaugh was not a dispassionate finder of fact but rather an engineer of a political smear campaign. And after decades of that, he expects people to believe he's changed his stripes.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...don-ncna907391
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 07:16 AM   #348
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,949
Character witnesses testify about Kavanaugh:
Quote:
The “outside witnesses” who testified on Kavanaugh’s behalf came across as insensitive and clueless. Those who testified against the nominee shared agonizing stories that illustrated how his rulings could degrade and destroy their well-being. The result was a surreal spectacle that revealed just how oblivious Kavanaugh’s supporters are to the consequences of his jurisprudence.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...witnesses.html
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 08:13 AM   #349
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,389
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Former associate? Lolz.

Say, why don’t you call him “current fanatical democrat operative and all round piece of **** David Brock.”

David Brock is against him? Insta- nomination. What a mutt.
__________________
"Don't tell me what cases you've won, tell me who you've beaten."

-M. Avenatti
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 08:29 AM   #350
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,989
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Former associate? Lolz.

Say, why don’t you call him “current fanatical democrat operative and all round piece of **** David Brock.”

David Brock is against him? Insta- nomination. What a mutt.
And to think, it was just a day or two ago that you were complaining about ad hominems.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 08:49 AM   #351
Bogative
Graduate Poster
 
Bogative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,079
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
That's exactly what it means. So he thinks a president should be exempt from all civil and criminal investigations, let alone prosecutions, no matter what he may have done in office or before he took office.
I'm not sure that a president is exempt from congressional investigation for crimes he may have committed before being elected. Who has said that, Kavanaugh?


Quote:
Why? Why should that be the case?
According to Kavanaugh, and at least two different DOJs, one from each party, the job of the president is too demanding and important to spend time on mounting a defense if he is indicted or charged criminally or civilly. See the quote in my prior post.


Quote:
Where does the Constitution exempt this one person -- alone among all Americans -- from the ordinary processes of law?
He doesn't believe that it does, hence his suggestion that Congress should pass a law that mandates a deferral of prosecution and investigation.

I would recommend reading the opinion that he wrote in the Minnesota Law Review for a better understanding of what he meant without the spin of the media and politicians, both for and against his nomination.

It's only eight paragraphs long and shouldn't take more than a few minutes to read. It starts on page 6 of this PDF.
Bogative is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 08:51 AM   #352
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,389
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
And to think, it was just a day or two ago that you were complaining about ad hominems.
HI! Lets learn, TOGETHER.

A guy posts a picture of money changing hands. A skeptic replies that the guy had retweeted Fox News. Blatant ad hominem fallacy.

A guy writes an opinion piece, a person links the piece as an appeal to authority. An actual skeptic points out that the person writing the opinion is a known confabulator, and democratic operative and therefore is biased. Not a fallacy.

Man I envy the people reading this post. They learned something
__________________
"Don't tell me what cases you've won, tell me who you've beaten."

-M. Avenatti
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 08:56 AM   #353
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,989
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
HI! Lets learn, TOGETHER.

A guy posts a picture of money changing hands. A skeptic replies that the guy had retweeted Fox News. Blatant ad hominem fallacy.

A guy writes an opinion piece, a person links the piece as an appeal to authority. An actual skeptic points out that the person writing the opinion is a known confabulator, and democratic operative and therefore is biased. Not a fallacy.

Man I envy the people reading this post. They learned something
Well, you believe that, and that's the important thing.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 09:09 AM   #354
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,389
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Well, you believe that, and that's the important thing.
Well, actually, I explained my position quite clearly and linked to an authoritative third party source to support it.

It ain't as if I simply polluted the thread with links to opinion pieces written by idiots.

Oh, "good" "comeback" tho.
__________________
"Don't tell me what cases you've won, tell me who you've beaten."

-M. Avenatti
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 09:43 AM   #355
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,356
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
And to think, it was just a day or two ago that you were complaining about ad hominems.
Wait, him? Seriously? I mean, I don't bother looking at what he writes most of the time, but...huh.

Anyway, dunno what I can tell so-called "progressives" who didn't vote for Clinton. She warned people, so did a lot of other people, they screeched that she was just trying to scare them, and now here we are.
Mumbles is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 09:49 AM   #356
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,989
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Well, actually, I explained my position quite clearly and linked to an authoritative third party source to support it.

It ain't as if I simply polluted the thread with links to opinion pieces written by idiots.

Oh, "good" "comeback" tho.
I'm glad you're happy.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 12:41 PM   #357
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,949
Kavanaugh: Perjurer?
Quote:
What’s atypical, or at least we’re told it’s atypical, is for American conservatives to suborn perjury. But that’s what they’re doing by supporting Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. During today’s confirmation hearings, Brett Kavanaugh was shown to have perjured himself before Congress in 2006.
https://www.salon.com/2018/09/08/bre...in-the-making/
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 12:49 PM   #358
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,389
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
No.
__________________
"Don't tell me what cases you've won, tell me who you've beaten."

-M. Avenatti
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 01:35 PM   #359
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,548
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
See the vox piece posted earlier on why it isn't perjury.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 01:54 PM   #360
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,689
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
It's the economy, silly.
Thanks Obama!
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:02 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.