Decent People Will Never Accept Kavanaugh As A Supreme Court Justice
When , and presuming if, they confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court the country will be on a path to the impeachment of a Supreme Court justice.
Kavanaugh has lied to the Congress and lied to the American people. The idea that someone who we will all have watched lie would be confirmed anyway is not going to sit well.
Ford's story has not been disproven. This woman passed a lie detector test. In the abscence of any proof she is lying, and since she passed the polygraph, she has to be given the benefit of the doubt. If Kavanaugh really believes he is innocent, let him take a polygraph as well and then we can see the results and go from there.
Kavanaugh blew his cover in the Thursday hearing. He revealed himself to be a political partisan who holds conspiracy type beliefs and unfounded grievances. That is, in itself, a good reason to pass him over for the Supreme Court.
This is all not going to end well at all.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
63 visitors
As soon as the Democrats take control of the House or Senate they are going to re-open the question of whether Kavanaugh is fit to hold this position.
This is the kind of thing that the Trump presidency makes a regular occurrence now.
I think it will be easier to impeach him if he's on SCOTUS rather than the DC COA.
Also it sounds like there's growing cause to impeach Trump's sister.
She apparently engaged in tax fraud, gave legal advice to family members for compensation (a no-no for a federal judge), and received campaign funding from a criminal shell corp which she owned (and then lied about it during her confirmation hearing).
A shame that some people can only define the decency of people to those that only share their own particular political ideology and viewpoint. Very poor choice of wording and very sad at the same time.
We have a great deal of evidence that SOME Trump supporters , aka Kavanaugh supporters are not decent people. They flocked to his rallies, which are absurd, lie filled, and often cruel.
I really don't care how much Trump supporters like to delude themselves, it doesn't interest me at all. We have a crisis in this country, and it requires the removal of Trump from office and the end of trumpism.
And you accuse others of being deluded?
One wonders if you really believe that nonsense or if its just the shtick you like to push on NY.
2018 is going to make 2016 look like a liberal win ..... i am very concerned that some of these folks won't survive it. Really!
Who exactly is 'We'? You have a mouse in your pocket? This story is about Judge Kavanaugh, not your regular anti-President Trump vomit
Your second paragraphs borders on violation of law...........
If criticizing Trump supporters as they so richly deserve was allowed here, I would have more to say.
But we are not allowed to criticize trump supporters. If you criticize Trump supporters you will get coc violations and eventually suspended for it.
And where does that leave the non Trump supporters like me that disagree with you, but are willing to consider all possibilities and maybe give some benefit of the doubt regarding Judge Kavanaugh. Going by the title of your article and your following comments, you have adopted a viewpoint of if you are not with us, you are against us and have automatically damned all that do not share your views under the same category. That is the danger of blanket statements like your title.
Never stopped you before.
That's B.S. and you know it. I have yet to see a COH violation for leftist putting down "trumpers". Hell they let you go on a rant about Trumpers in one post then let you call someone one the next. I've seen you do it.
More fake news from the fake news follower JR
Right back at ya John. Feel free to start another site and i'll be happy to join in and insult you after you've insulted me. Maybe you can start NV again right where it left off. That's how that place worked in the end.
In the meantime i'll continue to enjoy the relatively uncensored NT by comparison. Endless insulting of others who are "not of like mind" accomplishes nothing but perhaps stroking an overly inflated ego of ones self. In that regard NT does a fantastic job of not letting sophomoric shit like that happen here endlessly.
Good on NT!
I insult people who have earned it. There are many people here who I have no issue with whatsoever, and of course everyone knows it.
I back up what i say. Someone here posted a video purporting to show Anderson Cooper and CNN faking how deep floodwaters were during a CNN hurricane report. This right wing video was supposedly proof that mainstream media is "fake news". Even Donald Trump Jr. used that right wing video to complain that CNN was falsely attacking his fathers response to the North Carolina hurricane.
Well, it turned out that the CNN video Trump Jr. was complaining about wasnt from North Carolina, or 2018. It also turned out that Cooper did not "fake" anything. He did a segment on his show that discussed the right wing video and point by point went through it and destroyed all the premises in the right wing video, with his own video evidence. So I posted Cooper's debunking segment here, and in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, a couple of the "conservatives" here continue to propose their original , totally now disproved , conspiracy theory.
I think people like that merit criticism on a forum. And when given the opportunity to do so, I will criticize them. People like that are ruining our country.
well john, i may not be as extreme in my criticism as you are about the trump(or used to be) and some of the supporters here on NT.
But i do agree that there is a lacking in those who do support trump and comment as such. i pop in here and there and read comments from some the obvious supporters of him and just wonder how they do it.
how do they support someone much less tolerate his mentality. I think i figured it out. i think the term is called disassociation (this below is for them not you-lol lol)
At least in the sense of applying it to there own personal lives.
if trump has grabbed pussies, told a woman reporter (the other day) that "she never thinks" and lies about simple stuff and has slept with hookers. why in the world would people tolerate that stuff.
i have noted this before, but as a father of girls, would i accept this type of behavior and lack of moral decency with this man in a relationship with any of my girls......hell no. again in almost every aspect of my personal life, would i really want this type of person near my family ..................again hell no.
And i am not even concerned with the political party affiliation stuff just the " would i want this man to date my daughter stuff" and i keep ending up at the same answer.
The good part is that i know my girls wouldn't put up with this type of crap (at least i raised them not too) and yet that is question i would ask any of these supporters.
And i have a funny feeling that once they would have to THINK about it on a personal level, i would bet they wouldn't let trump near any of the girls / women in their own family....but again it appears tramp has found a lot of folks, who dont think like i do or normal folks like me and sadly due to the sadness of it all, i kinda consider them victims!(smiles)
We do?
There's the rub. Your definition of "earned" isn't even remotely close to mainstream in this country.
You are about to find that out, once again, on November 6th.
well it seems white men in general have a problem with the sexual respect of females.
i surely would leave them alone with clinton or schumer before i would trump.
one reason is because trump paid for his interaction, clinton did not. and the story on schumer is bullshit.
you are helping prove my opinion has validity, thanks!!
1) What in the wide world of sports does race have to with this?
2) Law enforcement data shows that about 30% of arrested rapists are black despite being only about 13% of the population. Whites generally are 2/3 of those arrested for rape and about 2/3 of the population, but over a quarter of those "whites" arrested for rape are hispanic.
So when it comes to sexual crimes against females, white non-hispanic men are substantially underrepresented .
How do you figure white men specifically have a problem with sexual respect of females?
Well as long as we're not being outrageously fuckin racist or anything................
give that shit a rest. for craps sake man/ woman. the fact is that white men and the church guys seem to have a pattern that has been exposed by the ME TOO movement and its clear you must not have noticed (as i see you want to paste stuff below) that most of the men in the news are ......................................yep say it with me............white males.
So lets not sugar coat what is at least in a SOCIAL MEDIA SENSE a very real dynamic. and may i point out that part of the reason this shit keeps happening is because ------like you have proven ---- it seems to be UN-THOUGHT-OF that this could be actually the real situation. The MeToo has provided a window of validity to my opinion.
and we arent talking about ARRESTED WHITE FOLKS are we....again lets go with whats in front of us..............not statistics because we ALL ALSO KNOW that most sexual assaults are NOT REPORTED(sigh)
and yet we are talking about white men in power that have been exposed for there sexually unwanted advances. SO again no need to spin what is clear to those who wonder why this is happening.
very simple i look at the news and see a lot of white faces from the very rich to the somewhat rich to the power ceo's to the ownership's and leaderships of mid to large and major corporations. and those accused have been .........................yep say it with me again.......................white males.
Bill Cosby and John Conyers are white males? Clarence Thomas too?
Ben Carson probably was too. That CEO of a pizza chain who ran for President was accused of sexual assault, can't think of his name. The Fox anchor Charles Payne was too...laid off for weeks because of sexual accusations.
CNN doesn't approve of parading these men for their audience.
ooh for shits sake YOU TOO? again the movement of what has been brought to the attention of our society via the social media spotlight using METOO is not shit load of black guys, hispanic guys, asian guys and any other color under the sun.
and yet if you even look above ---there is a comment to me--- to try to suggest that other potential people are just as bad acting as my comment on trump ( clinton and shumer) and they also didnt use ANY OTHER RACE.
The corporate outing of major leadership positions have been noted by men of color...nope. So it only leaves the obvious.
i mean you think this is a story / facts about a bunch of men of color?
And maybe to help with my opinionated point. i found this article with photos of some accused and in a very non scientific but resembling my comments i scrolled down the list of men.
and found that more then 90 percent were just as i have suggested power white men vs the two or three Hispanic males and the 5-6 black males in this article.
well i cant determine if you are in agreement with me or not. but ill assume not, that way i can rant on and on.
So you came up with two names of men of color--hummm
ooh you are on a roll now -- up to three men of color. But there are about 6 more in the article i just produced for someone else-- so now that makes about 10 men of color--
lol you really think is an observation based on one news channel-- thats pretty good. But thats not the only news channel.
in the end, the point is that brent like a lot of them are powerful white men that have had there way behind closed doors, opened wide. They have been exposed because some women are tired of knowing that the ONLY REASON some of them have not been exposed earlier is in some part based on the powerful position they hold over people that are not equals.
It is about power...not race. All of them regardless of race have been men who hold powerful positions, as you yourself have noted.
thats what you tell yourself. i tell myself that its about IMAGE and the image of the METOO movement and women standing up from themselves have decided the old boys club has to go-- and if its about POWER well then guess what........................ding ding ding
thanks for playing................who has all the power-----older white males!!!!!!
wow you are making this pretty easy for others to see my opinion may not be so off base.
Are they not men who hold powerful positions regardless of race?
slow down with the spin around and around. you seem to act as if the power the few men of color have is the same as the power the rest of the men have--its not.
everyone can claim powerful positions over someone else. but the opinion of mine is that the majority of those exposed are white men. And to support this i found the link below and did a scrolling poll and guess what...same thing.
now you can dip and dogde the obvious i just choose to not. and when i noticed that kav was another one accused i thought wow these guys are out of control. And i thought of those outed by the METOO movement and noticed the lack of men of color. Just like i noticed that about the priest abuses, humm not men of color.
This is not to suggest that men of color dont do wrong, or should not be posted or exposed by the METOO movement but there clearly is not a pattern of sexual misconduct of those men of color who are in very powerful positions.
Nope..I didn't address that at all. I said sexual assault is about power not race in response to your obvious racial opinion.
and i have provided you with a link............and if you scroll down that link--- you can see for yourself that there are more WHITE MALES that have been captured in the NET of me too that women have decided they want the world to know about.
now you can try to spin that around if you want too but i choose not too. Part of what you seem to be missing which also has a sense of relevancy is the idea that some of these outed men by the MOVEMENT is based on people being tired of them hiding behind there privileged. And that privilege in some cases is directly related to the race they are...again you can spin it.
But the lovely pictures are enough for some to come to the same conclusion.
No...it's racist. Full stop.
Here. Let's try this little experiment. I'll start a sentence:
It seems black men in general have a problem with......
There really isn't any way to finish that in such a way as to claw out of the racism pit.
Dude. Math. You're extrapolating anecdotal information, attempting to generalize. You're missing the fact that your information is not indicative of the norm. It is precisely outside the norm, which is why it's newsworthy.
That's funny. Well done, my good man.
Good luck with that.
Nice headline JR, typical left wing labeling.
So who is a decent person in your eyes? Someone who only has extreme left views and follows fake news CNN?
I know plenty of people that think the Democrats have went to far with this Ford/Kavanaugh B.S., that includes people of all political leanings.
Most of the ones crying about Kavanaugh are the liberal snowflakes that can't get over a lost election and haven't figured out elections have consequence's.
[deleted]
[deleted]
His "excuse' was backed up by considerable video evidence.
This is the reason why we need to be able to harshly criticize Trump supporters on this forum, by name.
Without that ability, they can bamboozle and gaslight at will with no repercussions.
There is no need to criticize members. You can criticize their opinions.
Hi KD! Our congress is broken. 51 senate votes for a supreme court man or woman (an "unelected official" as some conservatives often pound it home—unless its their 'guy or gal') hardly comes about as consequences of a lost election. That's a weak and abused talking point. Winning an election has no 'cause-effect' on people who bully; to become ignorant of the common courtesies and truths they themselves will turn this very day to demand from their own children and others on the street!
Some conservatives have forgotten that the opposition exists for a reason. We're people too. Now that last sentence sounds unnecessary, but it is actually not. Conservatives have "tuned out" and turned off their consciences—John Dean wrote a book about this phenomena that thrives inside conservative talk airways, books, and magazines. "Other-izing" of your fellow citizens is about to have a DAMNABLE 'backwash' effect on conservatives.
Now the whole world is watching what this activity of some conservative's removing of consciences and setting them aside somewhere looks like in practice. The other nations will understand how to do it, further do it, in their own political environs. And, when "America" comes calling expecting to be the epitome of moral high standards, other nations will simply point to an instance of a one party majority overruling all the voices on the other side uncompromisingly.
Conservatives will reap what they sow. Our congress is broken. And worse, the broken congress is heavily into the process of destroying the good qualities/respect for the supreme court for a generation.
On Newstalkers there is no ramifications for someone PERSISTING on presenting ridiculous conspiracy theories EVEN AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED. We are not even allowed to ridicule them.
What exactly do you think will discourage them ? Maybe you can shake your finger at them.
How predictable .....
Hasn't been proven either, not even close. In fact there is a LOT of credible info (at least as credible as her story) that tends to disprove it....
Personally, I think it comes down to three senators, Flake, Murkowski & Collins. (with Collins being the unknown)
Flake, will capitulate to the party after demanding a quid pro quo.
Murkowski, will capitulate cause she is an inexperienced junior senator.
Collins is a strong solid conservative and has voted against the party line when her ethics and integrity has been in question, but in general supports the party.
They need two of them..... and then Pence's vote to break the tie.
But if they lose two it's a dead issue.
The senate is 51-49. If you lose 2 you lose. If you only lose 1 you'll need Pence.
That is why I said they need two of them, you miss that part?
No, you seem to think that if two flip then it's tied, which is obviously false. If just two Republicans vote against then Pence is irrelevant (assuming all Dems vote against the rapist).
I guess you missed that part also....
"Dead Issue" in on the hill in washington means it over... failed nomination
Although I don't know the laws and followed precedents in the USA, but according to what I know of Canadian law and followed precedents (and can I assume they're not THAT different both being based on British jurisprudence, and notwithstanding the First Amendment) if Kavanaugh has not been convicted of rape, if you were not hiding behind a pseudonym, you could get your ass sued off you for libel.
That's the commonly held view.
But actually it may come down to five-- I'd add these two to your list of the three Republicans that are probably undecided: Heitcamp (D-N.D.), Manchin (D-W.Va.).
I'm not totally sure, at this point it looks too close to call.
And things could change at any moment.
But right now I think the odds very slightly say Kavanaugh will be confirmed.
Heitcamp and Manchin,
The conventional wisdom says they will vote the way the democrat hierarchy says to. If it looks like the republicans fall into line then they will vote for, if it looks like the nomination will fail then they will vote against.
History and experience says that their votes are conditional based upon the outcome....
That is why I didn't include them... they don't effect the outcome, only the final vote tally.
One of the benefits or detractions of coming from a district opposite your party, depending on how you look at it.
BTW originally I posted three names-- but at the last minute I deleted McCaskell-- I could be wrong but I believe that lately she seems to be indicating a vote against Kavanaugh. (I assume she knows the politics in her state-- so if she does vote against K. she must have reason to believe that that wouldn't hurt chance for re-election).
Hard to predict what Collins will do-- I seem to remember that often she waits till the last minutes and says she want to wait 'till all the facts are in, etc. but ultimately usually in those cases she votes Republicans.
Flake is a mystery to me-- I can't figure him out.
Perhaps the main (and only?) Republican to vote no may be Murkowski-- because of the Indian vote in Alaska. (She lost the Republican primary, ran as an independent, and won-- with strong Indian support. And I believe they are strongly anti-Trump and anti-Kavanaugh.).
If that happens I'll be interested to see how long it is before he's impeached. Keeping the FBI report secret won't prevent the people they interviewed and deliberately didn't interview from talking to the press.
There really isn't going to be a report. That's the problem with the thinking here. All there will be is additional pages added to his file from interviews, then it will be up to the Senators to decide whether they believe them or not.
You mean like the FBI did with their confidential interviews in the Clinton email investigation? Hopefully they are made public but I doubt the Trump regime will allow it. Either way the 40+ corroborating witnesses whom Trump prevented the FBI from interviewing will soon be heard from in the national press.
Have you no shame? Or do you not understand the word "corroborating."
What was it Josef Goebbels once said in Germany in the 30's? Something about telling people lies enough times and they will eventually start to believe them. Seems like the hard core progressive liberal left is using that reasoning about Judge Kavanaugh.
Apparently you don't. In fact none of the right-wingers here seem to understand what that word means.
Donald Trump has "no" honor and "no" decency. Kavanaugh is showing himself likewise. Caught in a web of lies, Kavanaugh throws away what's left of his judicial reputation for the bittersweet taste of sitting on the high-bench. Having been placed on the bench by a leader who cheats, lies, and defames others in nearly every aspect of his life.
Do you all see a pattern manifesting with Trump? Do you see it clearly?
I once played "doctor" with a girl neighbour in her garage when we were both 5 years old. So I guess I'll never get appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada, notwithstanding a very successful legal career, considered by many to be a prominent lawyer, and honoured by being appointed by Queen Elizabeth II as 'One of Her Majesty's Counsel Learned in the Law' which authorizes me to put the letters Q.C. (Queen's Counsel) after my name. Too fucking bad, eh?
Sorry Buzz ..... apparently you are disgusting so just accept it ...... cuz lenny sez so ......
Yes, I know I'm not so PERFECT as those who criticize me.
Wrong [deleted,] I called his comment disgusting. I have never stated my personal opinion of Buzz and I never will.
Whatever helps you sleep at night [deleted] sleep is important ....
Buzz, your comment is irrelevant.
Then why don't you flag it as "no value" or "off topic"?
As long as your neighbor girl was of the same mind I won't worry too much about it. Now IF you held her down against her will and did what you wanted to her instead... yep that could be a problem.
Somehow I doubt you did what I said, or you wouldn't be joking about it.
I have never in my life used force on any woman, except I got so angry at my ex-wife (for good caue) I once threw a chair at her, but missed, and we divorced not long after. That is the extent of physical (although I didn't hit her) abuse of ANY female (and the garage incident WAS consensual and mutual).
I have never in my life used force on any woman,
Buzz, I’m sorry if you thought I thought perhaps you had ever been violent towards anyone, That was not my intent. I was pointing out that playing Dr as children is far different than forcible assault.
My skill of satire is pretty poor, perhaps I should stick with what I know better, reality.
Sorry if there was any misunderstanding of my intent. None of us own each other explanations of ourselves to each other and I wouldn’t want to think I made some one feel they needed to explain themselves or their past to me. They don’t.
Have a great evening or whatever it is now in China
No need to be sorry, Steve, I know that what you wrote was not an accusation. However, since it did bring up the incident, and you made reference to using force, I felt I should totally clear the air about that.
Again sorry. Its cool I think we all knew you were OK with what You said your right I pushed it up needlessly even.
I really do need to stay away from satire and sarcasm though, I'm not very good at it and often it comes off ... well bad.
Thanks for the understanding
So . . . you have a kind of medical training!
LOL. Well, my first year in university was in Pre-Med.
It was at the University of Western Ontario, which is in London Ontario, not my home town, so I made the mistake of rooming in a residential basement apartment with my best friend instead of with other friends who were in Pre-Med who lived in residence. My best friend was in Arts, had half the class hours that I did, and he was a BIG party man. Although I got very high marks in the four lab sciences, I did not bother to open my calculus text the whole year and ended up with the record lowest mark in calculus in the history of the university, 18/100. Why calculus was important for a doctor I don't know unless it was to enable him to finegle his bill for services, but the University told me I couldn't continue in Pre-Meds, so I took a couple of summer Arts courses and switched into second year Arts at my home town university. When I was graduating with my B.A. I sought the longest university post-grad course I could so I could enjoy a student life as long as possible, and it was law, which required a B.A. to enter, was a 3 year course to get an LL.B, then a year of articling (apprenticing) with a practising lawyer, and then a 6 month Bar Admission Course studying for and being tested for our ability and knowledge of law, leading finally to being 'Called to the Bar' (certified as a Barrister and Solicitor) enabling us to practice the profession. Phew.
Tell me, other than the lie detector test - what makes you believe Dr. Ford's accusation? Without corroboration, this is a 'She said - He said'
Why should he even bother to take a polygraph? If he took one, would this all stop?
If Kavanaugh is innocent he should be willing to take a lie detector test. I'd even let him take two or three in case the first one comes out bad for him.
The idea that she cannot "prove" that he is guilty should not be the standard here. The standard should be , is there enough to make his ascendance to the Supreme Court highly problematic. We hit that point a while back now. There are other qualified conservatives, nominate one of those. This one has too much baggage. He has repeatedly lied to the senators, for one thing.
I'm not looking for 'proof', but rather some form of corroboration to her accusations. This is, after all, a very serious accusation. Again, I will ask - what makes you believe Dr. Ford's accusation?
Do you really want to set that standard here and now? Do you really want future nominees to be subject to serious accusations without corroboration? You know that is a very low bar for serious criminal accusations.
This nominee has been raked over hot coals and lava pits - yet he is still standing. He didn't disappear as everyone had hoped. There are many who were indifferent to Judge Kavanaugh. This whole ordeal has put them into his corner. Why? It's the willingness of others to find him 'guilty'.
I find the actions of Feinstein to be abhorrent. She claims she was honoring Dr. Ford's wishes to remain confidential. We all know that a confidential investigation - and even hearing - could have been conducted. Did she or her staff leak the letter? We will never know. We do know that she held onto that letter like an 11th hour treat. Had a republican member of the committee done that the Nation would have erupted. I get it though...I see the partisan lines drawn in the sand.
Sexual Abuse should NEVER be a partisan issue and those who stand accused should have the right to due process and fairness...regardless of their political preferences.
You mean like the accounts of the sexual assault which she gave her therapist, husband and friends?
She also says that she has other evidence which she was unwilling to provide in public testimony, but the FBI wasn't allowed to interview her.
.
Of course you do despite the fact that Feinstein acted responsibly and did everything right. That's because you're a conservative and you've been told to hate Feinstein.
This is, after all, a very serious accusation.
I agree, I would think anyone seriously wanting to get to the truth would need to do an in depth investigation to see what they could find. Checking out all and each detail. Objectively.
What she told her therapist(s), husband and friends was her account of an alleged assault that occurred 30 years prior. Since she and her husband claim that they were concerned 6 years ago that Kavanaugh might be nominated for the Supreme Court, she could have reported it to the FBI, or elected official then. The statements of her Therapist(s), husband and friends would have carried more weight.
Her attorneys chose that public venue. Regardless, couldn't she have invoked Senate Rule 26.5 and asked for a closed session to reveal that 'evidence' in secret as Grassley instructed ?
If the evidence was of a sensitive nature, she should have had her legal team review it and redact information not pertinent to the investigation.
Feinstein acted responsibly? She could have started an investigation into Dr. Ford's allegations seven weeks prior to the letter being 'leaked'...while maintaining confidentiality and Dr. Ford's anonymity. I don't associate with either party...so I can't be 'told' who to like or hate.
When conducting an in-depth investigation, it starts with what is known. There isn't a specific date or place...but Dr. Ford provided specific attendees. Two were merely attending the gathering (no hostility) and two were involved in the alleged abuse (can be considered hostile witnesses). All four claim they do not recall a gathering as described by Dr. Ford. If only one claimed they remember the gathering and seeing Dr. Ford run out - that would be enough corroboration to her claim to open a full blown investigation and consider criminal charges.
Since that didn't happen, where exactly do you believe an investigation should go?
And your point is what, exactly? Many corroborating witnesses in sexual assault cases aren't contemporaneous much less eye witnesses.
.
The actions of Grassley and the GOP staffers prove that they can't be trusted with confidential information.
.
That's complete BS and reveals that you don't understand the process much less respect the privacy of sexual assault victims. It's not even possible to investigate an allegation where the names of the victim and the witnesses aren't known to the investigators.
It's also clear that you don't even understand that Feinstein was complying with Ford's request and didn't release the letter to anyone but her staff.
.
So which is it? Do you want Feinstein to violate Ford's confidentiality by naming her, the other parties she named as well as her corroborating witnesses, or do you want that investigation to be done without that critical information? As I noted it's clear that you don't understand the process so you blame Feinstein because you've been told to blame Feinstein.
Mrs. Feinstein is a political distraction. She is republican operative damage control. You do "blame" Mrs. Ford. Stop with the pretense. A woman came forward with a credible presentation against a man interviewing for a life-time position on the highest court in the country. And your conscience informs you to "throw up a talking point" fire wall.
Focus on the man being interviewed for a life-time position: In your opinion did Kavanaugh lie to the Committee? Did Kavanaugh even know Christine Blasey 'back in the day'?
The release of said letter by the Democrats proved they could not be trusted. The letter was given to Feinstein's office to begin with and it was they who violated Dr Ford's trust to begin with.
That claim is entirely false since Feinstein didn't give it to anyone before it became public knowledge. "The Intercept" which first reported the existence of the letter says that it didn't come from Feinstein or her staff.
So once again you've believed something which simply isn't true.
Take note that I stated above "Feinstein's office", not specifically Feinstein herself. It could just as easily been one of her staffers under her direction and knowledge. Either way, that ultimately makes Feinstein responsible overall. The one who is believing something which simply isn't true is yourself. As I have said before, denial is a terrible thing and the progressive left has blinders on a mile wide.
Oh and I forgot to add above that according to MediaBias/FactCheck, The Intercept is blatantly leftist leaning, thus they can hardly be considered a fair and non biased source of info. So you get no cigar on The Intercept as a source. When challenged, you habitually only come up with one source to back yourself up and they are almost always blatantly leftist in nature and then expect to be taken seriously so better luck next time.
Not according to the people who reported the existence of the letter.
Whats funny is he doesn't even know what she was asked in a polygraph test.
Last I heard it was two questions.
1) Is your name Christine Ford?
2) Are you a female?
No it was more, 3) Were you ever sexually assaulted? 4) Do you know Brett Kavanaugh?
Since she and her lawyers will not release any of the information regarding the polygraph test we don't know what questions were asked; and what the recorded responses were.
We do know from Dr Ford's own admission it was administered either the day of, or day after, her father's funeral. Polygraph tests should never be administered during or after traumatic events that will prejudice the reactions/readings.
All Dr Ford and her lawyers need to do is release the full data from the tests.
Your questioning is flawed. If she answered yes to being sexually assaulted it does not mean it was by Kavanaugh; and just knowing Kavanaugh doesn't mean he did it. It would take several more questions stated in various ways to conclude that she was sexually assaulted by Kavnaugh. Oh, and she would have to answer a few questions about her political motivations on coming forward this late as well.
All that she and her lawyers will state is that she passed. Of course the test started off corrupted by when it was administered; but that doesn't mean anything does it.
Maybe I should've put a /s in that comment. It was a joke, "and just knowing Kavanaugh doesn't mean he did it" was the point.
Do you know Brett Kavanaugh
only in the Biblical sense, but 99% of US only know him from the News
The other 1% only know him from gang rapes and drinking parties they attended.
Prove it!
Decent people would not believe the unsubstantiated allegations 36 years after the......well, 'fact' isn't the right word........supposed incident took place.
Corrected statement:
Fanatics blinded by partisan rage who refuse to deal in reality will never accept Kavanuagh as a Supreme Court justice.
Who couldn't see this coming?
Now the FBI background check, which the Democrats claimed was the gold standard last week, is now an abuse of process, or whatever. Even though the FBI process was exactly what every informed person said it would be. Every honest person knows the fever swamp dwelling Democrats are never, ever going to be satisfied, even if the accusers sign full retractions. They don't care about the truth of the accusations, not a bit. It's all about keeping the seat open, as the contemptible Hirano admitted. Destroying the life of an innocent man doesn't bother them a bit.
Listen to the predictable whining:
The FBI didn't talk to a a friend of someone who might have been there who now denies being there! They didn't interview Ramirez's hand picked character witness, who didn't see the claimed event, but will say Ramirez is just peachy. They need to interview every person who attended Yale in the 1980s or it's not fair!
Lol. Funny how satisfied you are with having a flagrant liar on the US Supreme Court. Or maybe you believe the farce that the Treasurer of the 100 Kegs Club had different meanings for slang sex words than the rest of the country. He was a choir boy, after all.
... or not.
Actually, she only settled on the summer of 1982 after talking to her Democratic activist lawyers picked by Dianne Feinstien.
Just this summer, before talking to "her" lawyers who would have access to Judge's book, she claimed the assault happened in the mid 80s. And originally, of course, she claimed the assault happened in the late 1980s.....
You should be ashamed of this stuff John. This is taking guilt by a association to a whole new level.
You should be ashamed that you regularly act as a protector of Donald Trump.
I agree we will never know exactly what if anything happened as Ford has alleged.
Nonetheless what evidence there is is more than enough to withdraw Kavanaugh's name.
-
She knew who he was prior to the alleged incident, which greatly lowers the likelihood of mistaken identity.
All of the people she named were part of Kavanaugh's close circle of friends.
The general timeline she gives corresponds to a time when Kavanaugh was drinking and "partying" a lot.
She mentioned the incident to other people prior to Kavanaugh being nominated to the Supreme Court.
She passed a lie detector test concerning the incident.
She said he was "drunk" , and it turns out he liked to get drunk at that point in time.
Let him take a lie detector test.
There is more than enough suspicion there to deny him this seat. More than enough.
That comment is utter nonsense, and completely false.
The only people she says were at that "party" who deny the allegation (the allegation is that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ford) are Kavanaugh and Judge (who took part), They are the accused.
None of the people she said were there denied the allegation. None of them "refuted" it. They simply said they didnt recall being there.
You said that the other "witnesses" denied her allegation. Her allegation is that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.
NONE of the 'witnesses' have either denied or refuted that allegation. They have said they don't remember being at that party. They went to a lot of parties 35 years ago. It seems quite normal that they dont remember every time they hung out with a bunch of kids at someones house.
Ford does not remember exactly who was downstairs at the "party". Like the rest of them, she wouldn't remember the "party" at all except for the fact that she was sexually assaulted by two boys that she knew , at that "party". (It wasn't a party, it was a fairly small group of friends hanging out together on a summer night. )
That the fact that Leland or the others do not remember it should represent some "gotcha" refutation of Ford doesnt make even the slightest bit of sense.
She knew who Brett Kavanaugh was. She remembers him being the one. If it is not true , she is either lying or crazy.
Well, it's possible she is either lying or crazy. Of course, she took a lie detector test about the incident and passed it, so that whittles down on the likelihood she is lying.
She didnt look too crazy, but it's possible.
If there was no other elements that indicated that it could have happened as she said , maybe it would be right to confirm Kavanaugh.
But there are other elements, from the language in his yearbook, to accounts from those who knew him drunk and aggressive, to the other girl who says he shoved his dick in her face, to the "newspaper" article his best friend Judge wrote that suggested that girls from Ford's high school were kind of sluts. Recall that Judge was in the room and participated.
This all adds up to a preponderance of material that makes Ford more believable than Kavanaugh. It is a travesty to put someone under that cloud on the Supreme Court.
I'm not worried about my ability to make sense, believe me. I am worried about a lot of other people here though.
Do you wonder why the White House didnt put Kavanaugh and Ford on the list of people to be interviewed by the FBI ?
I'll tell you.
They were worried that Kavanaugh would be caught lying to the FBI, which besides being a crime would end his nomination. Better to pretend that there was no need for the FBI to interview him.
The FBI has not interviewed either Ford or Kavanaugh about these allegations. How do you have a "complete" investigation without interviewing the two people directly involved?
Well, Donald Trump is an irredeemable liar and is personally a total asshole. So it is only natural to wonder about an investigation which he set the parameters for and which was going to effect his desire for a new Supreme Court justice.
A lot of you would be better off to open your eyes and actually see what is going on.
That comment is obviously false.
Sounds like you've confused "corroborating witness" with "eye witness", the latter being quite rare in sexual assault cases. You folks apparently don't even understand what these words mean given that Ford has 4 affidavits from corroborating witnesses.
The names of the 4 corroborating witnesses are known but you just obviously don't understand what a corroborating witness is.
Name them yourself. They're part of the Senate's public record on the Kavanaugh nomination.
.
Indeed it is - I'm surprised that you're demanding other people do it for you.
A man or woman who won't own their own past when it is laid out before them by others is a lesser man or woman. A person without honor and lacking in self-respect. I can not and will not respect such a person.
What specifically never happened are you referring to?
Because I am referring to the Brett Kavanaugh, a judge seeking a federal promotion to sit in judgement of all of us, who has embroiled himself in public arguments with friends and former friends from his past insistently stating he is lying about his drinking days with sexual overtones and possible injurious sexual activities involved.
He lied under oath. How the hell that doesn't bother people is beyond me. I agree with you, rather than admitting that the truth about the year book quotes etc, indicates that he doesn't own his past.
He is trying to run from it.
There are way too many people that have come forward and are against Kavanaugh.
The American Bar Association, the National Council of Churches who have at least 100,000 Churches as members came out against Kavanaugh, Yale Law School came out against Kavanaugh, Jesuit magazine came out against Kavanaugh, several Republican governors spoke out against Kavanaugh, many of his classmates have corroborated his excessive drinking but the fact that Kavanaugh lied about it is the serious impeachable issue here.
Kavanaugh is a liar and does not have the temperament for the job based on his performance, Republicans and his refusal to release his entire court record and writings, the fact that Kavanaugh lied under oath, and the fact that the American people are by a majority against him.
If they vote and put him in place, there is no guarantee he will remain when there are too many people against him, not based on the sexual misconduct, but purely based on his terrible job performance, his lying about simple things under oath, and his failure to provide transparency on his judiicial record.
And they all have been present to hear and see all the evidence against K. Wait a sec, isn't what has reached their eyes and ears is all hearsay?
Generally lawyers are competitors, but in Canada the Prime Minister seeks the advice of the Canadian Bar Association when making an appointment of a Supreme Court Justice. I would assume that what the American Bar Association says about Kavanaugh would be an important factor. If they did not lower their rating, then freepress' comment may not be correct, or he is quoting from an invalid source.
Listening to you, it's a wonder we all don't think we are in Canada.
No offense Buzz, but Americans don't think about Canada all that much.
Is this more fake news?
What country was all the snowflakes moving to when Hillarious Hillary lost?
What country does the left claim we should follow in healthcare?
What country does the left claim we should follow on immigration?
[deleted]
Now that was completely uncalled for but unfortunately, expected behavior from you John
No. They don't. They just hope others will.
The ABA gave Kavanaugh the highest possible rating.
I am looking on the ABA's website and see nothing of the sort that you claim. I did see this:
'the Standing Committee awarded Judge Kavanaugh its highest rating of "Well Qualified" for
appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Standing Committee published its rating the next day.'
Actually they did this year based on his record on the court, but subsequent events call that hasty decision into question.
Hasty decision?
12 years is a hasty decision?
You do realize that calling for a more thorough investigation does not actually equate to "coming out against" a nominee, yes?
Do define "terrible job performance". Give us some examples.
I'm sure you would have been fine with the secondary investigation of Hillary's emails when found on Wieners laptop being limited to just the people the Obama administration told the FBI they could interview, right? And they wouldn't even be interviewing Anthony or Huma, just their maid and two friends. Would that investigation have been up to snuff for Republicans? Of course not, if the Obama administration had put the cuffs on any investigation of Hillary the right would be up in arms. Heck, we saw how they reacted to a justice department employees personal tweets having no bearing on any actual investigation. But to them, that's all they need. If you're born in Indiana but are of Mexican heritage, you can't be an impartial judge of Trump or his cronies. If you're a woman who comes out against a conservative, you must be a liar. If you're a sexual assault survivor, you're fair game to ridicule and abuse and Republicans won't try very hard to investigate your claims, they're more concerned about their grip on power than they are about any constituents trauma and abuse.
You know as well as I do that the whole thing is quite hypocritical. It's fine to scream "lock her up" even though there has been many investigations and zero charges field against her. Kavanaugh isn't facing jail, he's being vetted for the Supreme court and found sorely lacking.
OK, you have no clue in hell what I would have been fine with or not. So save your pouting.
I never gave a single tinker's damn about Hillary's emails. Or Benghazi. Try again. Anything else your "feelings" want to accuse me of?
Steaming great pile of melodrama. It was 36 years ago. She wasn't actually raped. She's never come forward before now because she was afraid of what people would think of her. Nobody's calling her a liar. But if you don't think there is a significant possibility that she's either confused or a bit unstable, you're just not objective.
So we're just supposed to believe whatever she says?? Despite the fact that she admits she's emotional and traumatized and can't remember 80% of the details? Despite the fact that the three people she names as being there have no clue what she's talking about?
The United States of America is supposed to let this one emotional, weak, supposedly unstable woman determine one of the highest appointments in our republic??? Sorry. That just doesn't fly.
Excuse me, but your contempt splashed over onto me and I ain't having this sentence:
Calling Mrs. Ford all these stereotypical traits exposes your point of view clearly: you do not like or respect Mrs. Ford's testimony. You do like and respect Judge Kavanaugh's testimony. That's your business.
However, it does none of us any good to say that with all the caveats flung out and whirling around Judge Kavanaugh that post haste should be the determinant factor which lands a decision-maker of all of us on the Supreme Court. No one should be granted a lifetime appointee to any job based on speed and improper treatment of controversy. I can say more, but will end right here.
This whole thing is about Democrats loss of power.
They didn't have to, the hag had it in the bag from the get go. Didn't Comey come to a decision before all the evidence was even heard?
All the crying because people still can't get over that the Presidential election is not a popularity contest is Hillaryious.
"Elections have consequence's"
Well without those two garbage conspiracy theories what did you have left to complain about? The pizza parlor sex ring? The assassination of Seth Rich?
"So we're just supposed to believe whatever she says?? "
No, we're supposed to listen and decide who is more believable. To me there is no question she was more believable. However, in a court of law I recognize that despite her compelling testimony we require a higher standard of evidence to criminally indict someone accused of committing a crime. Her testimony would never have been enough to convict Kavanaugh, but taken along with the other things even his friends and roommates have said of that time, plus Kavanaughs own fiery indignation showing him for a partisan hothead, proves to me he's not fit to sit on the supreme court.
I hated his testimony. It was unworthy of either affection or respect.
You can deal with your own ideas of stereotype however you like, obviously. My comments were not based in stereotype, but in her actions. I have a wife and a daughter, neither of whom are emotional, weak, unstable, or cowardly.
I view Dr. Ford as emotional because she is traumatized from an event 36 years in her past. I view her as weak because the source of her trauma was actually very, very minor next to what many, many people endure and overcome. (I've personally been assaulted more severely.) I view her as unstable because the definition of traumatized involves at least some given level of emotional and mental instability.
Finally, I view Dr. Ford as a coward. The sum total of her trauma is the fear of what she thought was going to happen. It never did. She failed to report this traumatic incident because she was afraid, both of her parents' reaction and potential social ramifications. Never mind what might happen to her assailant's next victims. She failed to report it for 36 years because she was afraid of what people would think or say about her. She failed to report it....even as she knew the man she believed was her assailant was being elevated to a federal judgeship, with legal power over hundreds of thousands of people....all because she was afraid of what people would think. Dr. Ford needs to have plucked up her courage long before now.
I contrast Dr. Ford's behavior to that of Kathryn Mayorga, who reported her alleged incident on the day.
I didn't say it should, and I agree with your comment. However Dr. Ford's actions make any reasonable investigation impossible.
I agree. I don't think that accurately describes the Kavanaugh situation, but I can understand why you do.
You have conducted yourself extremely well, and as such your comments are worthy of respect. I hope I have done the same.
Where in the lexicon of personalities are you so as it is necessary to bring your immediate female family into this? Humans have a university (one in diversity) of character traits. Consequently, I will not address your loved one after this instance.
When did you see me complaining? More to the point, when are you going to stop presuming you have a clue in hell what I'm thinking? People don't fit into neat little boxes. Welcome to real life.
The fact is I have disliked Hillary for a couple decades. About half as long as I've disliked Trump.
You are welcome to do that. I don't want a Supreme Court justice decided on "feelings" based on what people watched on television.
So her one-day performance is somehow more important than his 25-year spotless career in public service and his position as one of the best judges in America? It's not getting more rational as we go along, you realize that, right?
Do you see how you keep saying your opinion is based on your "feelings" about the events of this one day in the life of man under hideous character assassination on national television?
I'm sorry. In my mind, 25 years outweighs 1 day by 9,125 times.
Well so much for civility and manners...
I guess it was nice for the single post.
Back to personal attacks, I see.
Define weak and strong traumas. Then, relate both meanings to a change in any individual which informs him or her to develop a builted-in "avenue of escape" within a private residence (places of confinement).
Unstable? Explain the route you take to imply her life's course and her personal attitude has "crashed and burned." Mrs. Ford has a multiplicity of educational degrees and is a trained professional.She explains she was "off-track" for a period of four years in her youth and then she rebounded and surpassed that state of her life.
Jack, yours and my traumas (yes mine) combined can supply little to a woman and her experience of having a boy hold her down and invite within her the terror of being "inadvertently killed." It is her moment of fright—she is entitled to explain it (without false comparisons).
Nothing personal about that. We're having a discussion. In doing so thoughts have to "transit" by and forth in order to advance the exchange. That's all. Besides, it is you who informed me you can handle "severity." Buckle up. (Smile.)
How dare you. Mrs. Ford, in the middle-age of her existence, has been shown what society and its thrust can do to a woman like her. This girl, now a woman, plainly has been shown a new round of terror—she is in the "system" now. Unflatteringly. She is exposed. She is unbelieved by powerful people and mocked by name by the President of her country.
You want to put her under scrutiny, for pointing out something unattractive about a boy now a man, who is seeking a higher function in our shared government; where she would have to hear from him more regularly than on any other federal bench.
Mrs. Ford is not being "interviewed for a promotion" or undergoing a trial proceeding in this. Please keep that in the front of your mind going forward.
We can always be respectful and at the same time be plain and truthful. (Smile.) As in the day of David, after the death of his first child with Bathsheba: this deed is about to come down hard against my side, so I can get up and move on now. Onward, and let's see watch what the end will be!
IMO: The worse part of all of this is more division of the American people.
I see very few politicians who care. Most seem much more interested in what the division can do to benefit them personally, their party's position and power gains and ways to advance their own agendas. Very little consideration from any of them what their words and actions do to divide the country.
This world moves quickly and sometimes very important stuff gets overlooked. I remember as a child the words " United we stand , devided we fall" I dont think very many Americans remember that, care or believe that is true.
I think it is. I think the consensus of Americans is important for us all. We share ONE country. Many it seems would rather tear America apart than listen to and acknowledge they are not the only ones who matter on how this country is and will be in the future.
Many of them call them selves patriots. LOL
I dont.
This is not the time to blame "both sides". Both sides are not equally guilty. One side elected and supports the worst president in American history. Both sides are not equally guilty.
We need to have moderates and "independents" stop with this fallacy that "everyone" is responsible for the travesty taking place in this country.
The right, and particularly the utter deceptive and disingenuous right wing media complex, which bamboozles and gaslights the American public every day, is responsible for what is going on.
If moderates and independents do not oppose trumpism , denounce it, and vote against it, then they are part of the problem.
Nope Not buying it. As an independant I see BOTH sides so intent on advancing their own agendas neither cares about decency, reality or actually the American people or even the country. It's all about them and their agendas.
I have a really hard time naming any politician that doesn't constantly put their party and their party politics and agendas over WE the People.
From either side.
That is exactly WHY I no longer belong to nor support either American political party.
Neither represents ME.
Well, if you think Donald Trump , and say Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden, are equally poisonous to the American people and American society, I can't help you.
What is going on is obvious, and some people , out of their own sense of propriety or their own belief that there must be "two sides to the story" ignore the reality right in front of their face.
Well, if you think Donald Trump , and say Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden, are equally poisonous to the American people and American society, I can't help you.
Thats OK I dont need your help. I see the world just fine. All politicians have their good and bad points.
People not seeing or acknowledging that are actually the ones who seem to be the problem. No one is perfect that certainly includes the people we hire to represent us.
Of course some politicians are worse than others. But without keeping an open mind about them all many people miss the fact they are all just people and all are fallible.
Yep Both sides have their problems. Ignoring the problems of the party you choose to support doesn t change it.
Have a nice day
This isn't about "both sides", it's about one side trying to push through a nominee who has a very poor character. If they succeed it will damage SCOTUS and the judiciary committee. The only good news here is that their actions here have already done serious damage to the GOP.
Ok, you're part of the problem. That's allright. You are hardly alone.
The vast majority of Americans get their news from multiple sources, and the viewership for NBC, ABC , CBS, news is small. The viewership for CNN and MSNBC is even smaller. There are hundreds of conservative websites that dispense their version of the news to their audience. "Conservative" viewpoints dominate nationwide talk radio, which reaches tens of millions of Americans every week. Not to mention You Tube, which has an endless supply of conservative news and conservative viewpoints.
The idea that there is no right wing media complex is laughable.
Sorry you see someone who tries to be an objective observer as part of the problem. Why Is that?
Perhaps you dont want to see things objectively yourself.
I understand that stance I just have moved on from there. I used to let myself become involved in these politicians as well. No longer I now see most of them are in it for themselves more than in it for me or reality or even the country itself. Why should I support that ?
I don't doubt that there are a lot of people like you.
It's just not a realistic response to trumpism, imo. People like you are only going to help to prolong the effect of trumpism.
Trump is, bluntly, a crook. A pathological irredeemable liar. A bully. He is personally , and obviously, a person that you regularly refer to in our own lives as an "asshole".
Why would someone have ambivalent feelings about this person being president of the United States to the point where they would say "both sides are equally at fault" ?
Why would someone have ambivalent feelings about this person being president of the United States to the point where they would say "both sides are equally at fault" ?
We don't usually agree but I like your style here Steve. You are a fair and respectful debater and that is worth respect no matter what anyone sez. Don't let them get you down. That said:
Never try to reason with a narcissist. It rarely ends well for either party.
First thank you for the kind words, Second I try to treat everyone the same, with respect (as I would like to be treated) until I'm shown by that individual that they can't or won't reciprocate. Then I can change style if I chose.
If and when it turns "sour" I usually see it more of a reflection of what that person is, not what they want to see me as. That's up to them.
I dont take any of this too seriously, people will say anything and everything "anonymously".
Thanks again
The "Division" has been growing long before Trump and what is going on now.
The perceived "Sleeping Giants" just Vote....quietly. They are WIDE AWAKE NOW !
The "loud Cackling Hyenas" are told by the MSM and the "Left" politicians" that they are winning because they are loud and obnoxious, so they, the "Loud cackling Hyenas", think it's a good thing. Well, looking back to 2010 until now, it hasn't been a "good thing", but the "Loud Cackling Hyenas" don't want to to learn from the past as long as there is someone out there telling them they are winners, even when they lose.
This....EVERYONE GETS A TROPHY crap...….IS OVER !
You may be correct , I certainly see America becoming more of the Might makes Right mentality everyday.
IMO: From my experience, That is what we've had since I was a child. We also had some decency, people respected the truth and fairness was considered important.
All those qualities I see slipping away and replaced with " I have the power or the money, I will do what I want.
Good Luck America.
These new "Adult Cubs" eventually have to get kicked out into the "Real World" and make it on their own. This "Stay on your parents policy until your 26", didn't help much. Mommy and Daddy really don't want to take care of you "Forever".
The "Lefts Mantra" of "Everyone "Needs to be cared for"....."everyone is a victim" ...…. is a farce.
I wasn't surprised when my kids left the nest when they were supposed to, and are actually "Making it" in this world of ours.
Where are supposing this entitlement mentality originated ?
Why do US younger generations feel the World owes them something...
I wasn't surprised when my kids left the nest when they were supposed to,
when they were supposed to,.... Good for you and your children .Some of us needed to grow up much sooner I was out from under my parents control and home by age 17 and never looked back.
I have become very independent and successful myself. even retiring at the younger age of 60.
As far as mainly healthy young people staying on their parents policy as a loophole to lower their insurance maybe the insurance companies should have done better themselves and not charged them the rates they wanted to begin with.
Might made right till the government stepped in and made them charge what they wanted to charge these mostly healthy people.
And the world didn't end.
Same here.
Who wants to stay with their parents and be funded. Definitely causes waaaaaay to many restrictions in the life you and I wanted.
Kids these days don't seem to think that way it seems. Crying closets, safe spaces, pacifiers, "I deserve", etc..... Not very "Independent" like.
Folks are fighting the wrong fight IMO. It's not wages that are a problem, it's cost of living. People keep wanting higher wages to keep up with costs…… but all that does is drive up the cost of living again. Start fighting against "Cost", and then you'll have a solution. Med. care is right up there with the highest cost of living. Insurance companies aren't gonna lose out of the goodness of their hearts. Anyone that says they are willing to always lose, is a NUT !
Pfffft. That's nothing - I was making $200K/yr by the time I was 8 months old.
Lazy fucking Parents that find it's easier to make kiddies adults before their time, and lack of paddles in the home....period.
LOL..Yep, Like driving away from a fast food restaurant without buying anything because they have pushed up their price too much ? lol
I did that yesterday.
Not enough people do that though.
My wife gets a bit miffed when I do that....but so-be-it.
Not enough people do that though.
O I understand that, that is why they think everyone will pay $5.00 for an order of "value fries".
I didn't .
How 'bout those that are willing to pay $1,000.00 for the latest Apple Phone.
Hell, my first car was less than that.
Would more violence to boys wind up with them being less violent men?
And if violence is the answer, then why does our society put violent men in jail instead of using violence to end their violence?
Could it be that the tendency to commit violence is really a sign of mental illness? We really need to find answers to preventing violence instead of dealing with the lethal consequences that wind up with the deaths of people who have the misfortunate to cross their paths or be under their control in any way.
Scenes like the following are happening across the US. Would more beatings in childhood prevented the killer from becoming an abuser of women and children?
Sure, IF you beat them to death. Barring that, probably not. It just normalizes it
and justifies it. "I was beat as a child, look how I turned out , now I beat you to make you conform."
Great system, unless your a part of it.
The Girls in my family were paddled too. None of us turned out to be a "Serial" …….Any Fucking lunatic Thing what so ever !
I get it.
Wonderful, I'm not saying everyone who was paddled did or will or would. I am stating violence used to make people conform IMO: Backfires many times in the end. Violence begets violence.
If i beat you to make you do want I want perhaps you will learn to do that as well.
IMO: Probably not the best thing to teach anyone.
Not all people should reproduce. That is why there should be comprehensive sex education, parenting education and free birth control. That way only the "responsible" adults, who can afford to feed, clothe, shelter and educate children, will reproduce.
I am not sure where the chicken pluckers and garbage haulers will come from, but hopefully, we will eliminate the need for prisons as all children will be "properly" raised by "responsible" adults. /s
I never hated my parents. Waaaaay more good than paddles happened in my family. We....the kids....made sure the paddles didn't happen by our behavior alone.
Others seem to be Mentally disabled if they think a simple spanking is the thing that made them violent. That's why they are considered mentally disabled.
Exactly.
We don't beat criminals in the US. Depending on law broken, they lose privileges (driver license or gun ownership, or we give them a "timeout" in prison - sometimes for life. Nowhere is the punishment a beating.
hopefully, we will eliminate the need for prisons as all children will be "properly" raised by "responsible" adults. /s
IF you could bottle your optimism you'd get rich.
I doubt americans will ever stop producing babies that can't or won't properly be care for... ever.
If Adults, or anyone else for that matter, in this day and age, don't know about right and wrong by now....without the need for MORE "Warning Labels" …….. more education is gonna do nada and is worthless.
Its not just an American thing, its an all people thing.
We are not perfect beings, we all make mistakes.
"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."
"Spanking" the biggest fattiest portion of your body that you constantly "Sit on" and "Shit From", isn't beating.
Anyone, who believes that children need violence in their life to learn about right and wrong, needs more education in parenting, child development and human psychology.
Anyone that believes a crack or two on a big fat cell is violence, needs some education.
I agree. The apple doesn't usually fall far from the tree. Children, prone to react with violence, are usually subjected to violence in their home, family, or society...and/or are born with a genetic predisposition to be violent.
The roots of violence, in children, needs to be understood and dealt with in positive ways so it does not become a problem that society has to deal with when the children become violent adults.
I am not optimistic to the point that I believe there is a "cure" for violence, but I do know that our society can and should do more than we have done and are still doing to address how to help children with a violent problem before they become another criminal statistic.
I tend to disagree, IMO: Anything a person does to inflict pain to get someone else to do what they want is wrong and has the potential to teach the one they are attempting to control to use that same behavior to try to control others in the future.
Violence teaches and promotes more violence.
Just my opinion.
PS: This goes for animals as well. I would never really trust a dog or any animal beaten into submission.
I agree. Same goes for a horse.
A trainer once told me "If you are going to teach a horse, it is essential that you are smarter than the horse." It was implied "because you are never going to match its strength".
I have learned from experience, that the most intelligent thing for me to do, is to avoid people and animals who are prone to violence.
"Anything a person does to inflict pain to get someone else to do what they want is wrong"
No consequence for Bad behavior.....is WRONG !
Being talked to for bad behavior....isn't a consequence...... It's a privilege to young ones.
Ya see.....just talking to a youngin', is like believing they have enough sense to live on their own. It's the Liberal way as to treating undeveloped kids like adults.
How do you teach a youngin' anything without talking to them?
Have you ever paid attention to a kids mannerisms when you just talk to them ?
Put a bit extra in before the conversation and they will actually pay attention.
Bet your one that likes to talk to youngins' for hours as a learning tool. That should hold their attention.
I like the quick and easy method myself. Point sinks in REAL QUICK.
I agree.
However, the punishment should fit the crime.
In no place in our society is violence an acceptable punishment for crime.
It is barbaric to believe that children should be subjected to a violent punishment that is not acceptable to use on an adult.
Lazy parenting was mentioned above. Couldn't ask for a better example.
No consequence for Bad behavior.....is WRONG !
True. Consequences coming from actions take by an individual are that person's responsibility when another person induces their own consequences into the picture that changes things, The reality of the consequences is no longer a direct result of the behaviour it is someone else interpretation of bad behaviour should result in. Bad behaviour has its own consequences. For instance: If you break something, you no longer can use it.
Unfortunately or fortunately not every bad act is immediately followed by these consequences
Beating people to make them conform teaches them to do the same.
I understand the premise you are advocating I just dont agree with the terms, consequence should be allowed not manufactured.
I know people who never allowed their children to be subject to the real consequences of their actions and that I consider as bad as you may see people not using spankings to teach their children about consequences.
Want to learn about consequences,? Experience the real result of them. Spanking is an artificial punishment for an action when no bad results are produced to the one doing the bad behaviour thru the reality of what they actually did.
But Hey, I dont really care. To each their own is how life operates anyway. I just have my opinions.
Thanks
Lazy parents are all "Talk'....no action.
Did that help ?
Talking or just taking something away just doesn't work. Kids can wait you out longer than you can wait them out. It's like they say "Kids have good memories, but they're short memories". Kids go on to something else until the talking or taking away blows over.
Been through 3 kids all 6 years apart. Now grandkids. Experience helps.
You do have this love of "Shock" wording dontchya. You must be a Liberal.
Ever heard the phrase....."All talk, no action" ?
Nope. I spanked my children before they were school age. I would not do it today. I have learned better skills to cope with toddlers.
When my children were school age, I made them explain their thought process as to why they acted or reacted as they did. My youngest was valedictorian, worked her way through college - graduated with a 3.9. She has managed to raise her child without spanking. I have learned a lot about parenting (and my lack of skill) from my daughter. My granddaughter has been in martial arts since preschool and is now a black belt in preparation for the "real" world where boys were never successfully taught that violence is unacceptable.
And how did your kids turn out ?
Everyone has their ways of getting what they want and we all learn from each other.
The one I spanked is a childless, divorced, far right religious, hypochondriac, manic depressive who doesn't speak to me.
The one, I talked to, is the valedictorian, who is still married to her high school boyfriend.
Sure !
You said "you spanked your Children".
Not a "Child".
Which is it !
I like the quick and easy method myself.
Many do. including my parents.
BTW: I was out from under their control just as soon as I could arrange it. I set up my last year of highschool so I could graduate early so I could work full time to get out from under their control. My sister had a harder time, she eventually moved to Germany to get away from mom even..
Quick and easy isn't always the most effective way for the long term.
I spanked the younger one less than a half dozen times. She was rarely aggressive to her sister or anyone else.
The older daughter was molested by her father's 16 year old brother. She had "anger" issues forever after that. The military doctor refused to certify that she had been molested. I had no emotional support or education on how to deal with a child who had been molested so I did it the "CHRISTIAN" way and "DID NOT SPARE THE ROD".
I am appalled to the damage I did to my beloved child due to my own ignorance and the ignorance of the society that I and she was raised in. The society that still exists today and that society is supporting the same backward mentality to the Supreme Court today.
As a Parent, it's not supposed to be about getting what one wants. It's about teaching right from wrong.
My 2 1/2 year old grandson is a Dickins.
Example:
5 nights nights ago (We babysit 5 nights a week until his dad picks him up), I set him up to color in his coloring book. He was doing fine for awhile, and then he decided to reach over and write on the wall. I went over and put his hand on the paper and told him he was supposed to color on the paper. Things were fine for a bit, and he decided he was going to color on the wall again. I did the same thing, and he was fine for another bit. I decided to just watch him this time, and sure enough, he tried it again. This time I took the crayons and set them on the counter for awhile. He did the fake cry thing, but went on to some other toy. he finally came over and told me he wanted to color again, so I explained (Talked) to him to remind him it was coloring on the paper only. Got him set up, and again things went okay for a bit, but this time he actually looked me dead in the eye when he started moving his hand over to the wall with the crayon. He friggin looked at me the entire time he was getting ready to do it again, just to see if I would do anything. I warned him, but he gave me this little wide eyed smirk as to say "We'll see", and he did it.
Well.....he saw. I took the crayon, popped him on the butt to end it. He hasn't done that around me since then.
So spanking wasn't the cause of the problem. I understand.
You rodded the one that was molested ?
Are you really islamic ?
It's all about consistency. When the child doesn't have to think about what different consequence might happen, It's better for the child.
LOL... Twice
Thanks for sharing that. Yep I know kids are something else. While I agree that a slap on the butt is not going to wreck anyone's kid as a main way of discipline I do believe using violence in the form of beating their ass does the child a disservice as well as society as a whole. Monkey see monkey do relates to us many times as well.
Thanks I'm sure you did well raising your children or you wouldn't be talking about it.
I'm a firm believer in Moderation in everything, this is no exception.
Beating their ass is a different story. I never beat any of my kids. A stinging butt or two, but that's it.
Beating Myself...... at times …..maybe...…
Some think even a swat or two on the butt is a Beating. That's where things get pissy and just "WRONG" with me. Those types need a really good swat on the ass.
It's all about consistency. When the child doesn't have to think about what different consequence might happen, It's better for the child.
I believe you. You talk too freely to have knowingly done wrong.
Thank you for the conversation about this.
Age specific punishment is how we dealt with our kids. Swats were good up until about 9. 9 to 15 was more "Sit in your room (get out of my face
)" or "No friends over for awhile". Progressed to the biggy, "No car this week my son/daughter". Mwahahahaha.
I didn't give out cell phones to my kids. They wanted one, they got a job to buy one and keep it up and running on their own.
Once they are out of the nest, they are on their friggin own. I did my time. LOL !
No. Are you? Or are you just not acquainted with the Christian Bible?
I did not want my daughter to be a minion of Satan and an abomination to Yahweh with her anger, defiance and violence to others. So I did exactly as I had been taught and what had been done to me by my Christian parents.
Catholic grade schools, alter boy, Church every Sunday, Catholic High School, etc...
I'd say I'm a little familiar with it. Grandparents were strict Italian Catholics.
None of my family ever did what you say you did to your kid. Seems your kids problem came from you.
I seem to remember posting about a "Parent" problem above.
Age specific punishment is how we dealt with our kids.
That sounds both reasonable and responsible, and why are you here ?
LOL
Once they are out of the nest, they are on their friggin own. I did my time. LOL ! LOL !
Good luck between the screwed up world we life in and your parenting skills, time will tell.
I'm glad I was born when I was and always have been I was and am spoiled ! Had a good life and didn't have to wreck my health or kill myself to do it.
Being born now.... Scarry !
I spanked my child. I did not beat my child.
My daughter needed counseling for their aggression instead of a spanking.
My toddler's problem began with a male dominated society that did not report and deal with teenage pedophiles and provide ongoing counseling for the parents and the victims.
Being Old and self employed gets boring. Computer screens are dulling. LOL !
"Being born now.... Scarry !"
Depends on the Parent I suppose.
I know I'm not scared. I hope I taught my kids well.
I'm at the age where I just say "Fuck it" to someone, and not even bat an eye. I do see if they cry when i say it though.
Young men think they know all the rules. Us Old men know the exceptions.
With your "paddle" that you were advocating for above?
Using a paddle is a far cry from one smack on the bottom with a hand.
No.....I have a 6ft. long 2x4 I used.
Ever heard the phrase...."Paddle the butt" ?
Being Old and self employed gets boring. Computer screens are dulling. LOL !
LOL... Same here.
When I look around I seriously am glad I was born when I was. I see the world getting both better and worse all the time. I think life was easier and less complicated than it is now. We had 3 news stations, all tried to tell us the truth.
That sure as hell isn't the case now.
IMO: Just seeing reality is even harder now.
So this: 13.2.56
"I did not want my daughter to be a minion of Satan and an abomination to Yahweh with her anger, defiance and violence to others. So I did exactly as I had been taught and what had been done to me by my Christian parents."
Was just a try at a joke ?
Life can suck these days for sure.
"I think life was easier and less complicated than it is now."
I see it that way myself. I'm still a huge fan of "Grease".
"Grease" is the way dontchyknow.
LOL.. I saw that show, I think it was something like "Walking tall" The end wasn't pretty.
PS: You sound like me, I have a 2 ft 1x1 I use to control my 5 Chow Chows. I hope my end is better !
"LOL.. I saw that show, I think it was something like "Walking tall" The end wasn't pretty. "
And the fun begins.
Fantastic, Can I ask what you did at 8 months to warrant such an income ?
Now if you tell me you were selling shit, I may believe it.
LOL
I was selling the same shit which Trump was selling at that tender age.
I was selling the same shit which Trump was selling at that tender age.
LOL Evidently you changed careers and personalities somewhere along the line.
lol
IF I had been born filthy rich.... I wouldn't want to be me or probably be around me. I have little doubt I would have turned out a REAL A hole.
Being middle class, I couldn't afford to be.
I still did OK.
As an A hole that is....lol (It's kind of a natural thing)
lol... Actually as a very self reliant independent person I have developed and cultivated a variety of personality styles or hats I wear. Starting with the first treating everyone the same... With respect. Where They take it from there, I can adapt and do.
Have a nice day
Our system and our traditions do not require the accused to disprove accusations. Just imagine if they did! You could ruin anyone's life with a simple, unprovable accusation.
It's incumbent on Ford to prove her own story. She hasn't done that.
First of all, there is no such thing as a "lie detector." It's a polygraph examination and all it does is measure physiological data while a person is asked question.
Second, what do we know about that exam? We know there wasn't much to it. It consisted of two questions.
1) Is any part of your statement false?
2) Did you make up any part of your statement?
Here's the polygraph test Christine Blasey Ford took on her allegations against Kavanaugh
Even if you believe in the efficacy of polygraphs to detect deception (and I don't), this is not enough of an exam to be revealing. I have seen these exams conducted and the people who do this professionally take a long time with several questions required to obtain a baseline and then several more to draw out alleged truth or deception.
Furthermore, we can't see raw data and no one has questioned the examiner.
Even then, many factors will influence results. They are not reliable. Even if they were reliable to reveal the honesty of the person speaking, they don't reveal whether or not the person is correct about the things they believe. There is a reason we don't make important decisions about people's fate based on these snake oil machines.
When you are in a situation like this where there is no "proof" of the allegations available, you have to go on the preponderance of the evidence or the preponderance of the argument made on both sides behalf.
There is no need to prove Kavanaugh tried to rape her, all that is required is to show there is sufficient question, fairly posed, that casts his fitness for the Supreme Court into serious, even fatal, question.
That burden has been more than met.
You've created a brand new standard because it supports the outcome you like. I have to believe everyone who supports this idea that Kavanaugh is guilty because he has been accused is either unable or unwilling to put themselves in his shoes. Just imagine if you were suddenly accused in this way. Wouldn't you insist on proof?
The applicable standard for any sane person to vote against Kavanaugh is "reasonable suspicion".
The standard for the GOP is "There's no absolute proof that you're a rapist so welcome to SCOTUS!"
I like this argument, John. Since the allegations cannot be corroborated, the scales do not tip in favor of those making the accusations. Therefore, the allegations should not be considered in the confirmation processes.
They've been corroborated. Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word.
I certainly must have missed that - Which of the four, that Dr. Ford testified were at the gathering, said that they were there? PJ, Leland, Mark or Brett? Did she provide a written account...like a journal or diary? Please, indicate how Dr. Ford's allegations were corroborated.
If you are referring to the statements that Dr. Ford wants to provide from her therapist(s), husband and friends she told five to six years ago...you do realize that they cannot corroborate the actual incident occurred, but can testify that she told them about an incident that she has memories of from 30 years previous.
If you are referring to the statements made by Ramirez or Swetnick...please, tell us all how these statements were corroborated.
The way many sexual assault allegations are corroborated by the victim recounting the events to 3rd parties, some times many years after the sexual assault.
I am a survivor. In one event I told no one - didn't write it down. That memory was extremely vivid early in my teens, I could probably even tell you who held me and who removed my bathing suit bottoms. Decades later, I cannot see their faces in this memory. Without having written accounts of the event in a diary or journal, or having told a friend why I left the party so early...there is no corroboration that the incident occurred.
Even though I am telling you - decades later - You cannot corroborate that the attack actually occurred.
This isn't a criminal trial it's an interview for a job promotion, so reasonable suspicion is the relevant standard. Would you hire or promote someone who was credibly accused of sexual assault?
.
That's false on both points.
That's an obviously false statement. Neither "rapist" or "credibly accused of rape" are protected classes under employment law, but maybe they will become so in the Trump/Kavanaugh era.
It most certainly is. The only prohibited reasons are those which infringe a protected class. All other reasons (and even no reason at all) are permissible.
Not at a "Well run Company" it wouldn't be !
Neither has my story about Nancy Pelosi's human trafficking ring.
Which are idiotically unreliable. Why don't we just cast lots?
In the absence of any proof he is lying, and given 25 years stellar record in public service, we should definitely believe anything any emotional and unstable woman has to say about him.
Or.....you could just admit you hate him because he's a male, Republican, Trump nominee... and we can all go back to doing sane things.
I'm glad you finally admit that your calls for "investigation" were a hopeless sham and that you had no intention of ever accepting his nomination.
I'm just glad that the GOP was able to rig the investigation so it really was a sham.
Best not to dig too deep. ya might find some old shit someone buried long ago, eh ?
I agree !
Riiiiiight. Of course they did.
Isn't that the definition of "sham" in the Batshit Leftist Dictionary? sham: noun. Investigation not leading to a Republican being burned at the stake.
seed closed