Kavanaugh and Perjury

[_subgenius]

1. Where exactly did I reject any idea?
2. Where exactly in SomeSchumck's post were there "roots of honesty"? The guy wears his I-am-emotional-and-stupid-and-hate-all-things-Republican spittle on his sleeve.

We can run with your claim that you’re not rejecting the idea, rather just claiming that the idea is what Nazis would do. This new equivocation of yours is fine with me.

Unfortunately, your statement still shows an astounding ignorance of actual history along with not fitting the circumstances here. But, that’s pretty much par for the course as far as you are concerned.

Yawn - you guys always select your integrity by what is most convenient. The equivocation was between Cheney and Nazis. The other, subtle, equivocation was between stupidity and SomeSchmuck's post.

See the obvious "false dilemma fallacy" is old hat for Democrats like you, where you ask questions like "do you enjoy beating your wife?" and then snark your way to a masturbatory celebration when the question is ignored or refused. The Democrats never cared about what an FBI investigation would reveal, or not reveal...it was about delay and at least about motivating a base around the #metoo (a.k.a. pound me too).
So yeah, mockery of Schmuck's post is required because garbage in equals garbage out.

[_subgenius]

Unfortunately, your statement still shows an astounding ignorance of actual history along with not fitting the circumstances here. But, that’s pretty much par for the course as far as you are concerned.

What can we really expect from a guy who defends the party of rape?

viewtopic.php?p=1146656#p1146656

[_canpakes]

We can run with your claim that you’re not rejecting the idea, rather just claiming that the idea is what Nazis would do. This new equivocation of yours is fine with me.

Unfortunately, your statement still shows an astounding ignorance of actual history along with not fitting the circumstances here. But, that’s pretty much par for the course as far as you are concerned.

Yawn - you guys always select your integrity by what is most convenient. The equivocation was between Cheney and Nazis. The other, subtle, equivocation was between stupidity and SomeSchmuck's post.

See the obvious "false dilemma fallacy" is old hat for Democrats like you, where you ask questions like "do you enjoy beating your wife?" and then snark your way to a masturbatory celebration when the question is ignored or refused. The Democrats never cared about what an FBI investigation would reveal, or not reveal...it was about delay and at least about motivating a base around the #metoo (a.k.a. pound me too).
So yeah, mockery of Schmuck's post is required because garbage in equals garbage out.

Digging a deeper hole isn’t doing you any good, nor will it erase your astounding ignorance of history or your asinine analogy.

But, it is fun to watch you spin so desperately. Please, continue.

[_Some Schmo]

Yawn - you guys always select your integrity by what is most convenient. The equivocation was between Cheney and Nazis. The other, subtle, equivocation was between stupidity and SomeSchmuck's post.

See the obvious "false dilemma fallacy" is old hat for Democrats like you, where you ask questions like "do you enjoy beating your wife?" and then snark your way to a masturbatory celebration when the question is ignored or refused. The Democrats never cared about what an FBI investigation would reveal, or not reveal...it was about delay and at least about motivating a base around the #metoo (a.k.a. pound me too).
So yeah, mockery of Schmuck's post is required because garbage in equals garbage out.

Digging a deeper hole isn’t doing you any good, nor will it erase your astounding ignorance of history or your asinine analogy.

But, it is fun to watch you spin so desperately. Please, continue.

LMAO

It would seem the idiot doesn't know what "equivocation" means. damned dumbass.

Man, that's funny.

[_EAllusion]

This reminds me that during Sotomayor's confirmation process, Fox News personalities compared her to Hitler for half agreeing with Obama that judges must have empathy in decision making. And that belief was treated as a quasi-scandal by Republicans and therefore covered as a contentious issue among the mainstream press.

[_Kevin Graham]

It just blows my mind that Republicans think they're in position to whine and moan about unfair tactics by Democrats or politicizing during a Supreme Court appointment.

Anyone remember Merrick Garland who never even got a vote because Republicans said the election was almost a year away? Then with another election just two months away they're desperately trying to rush to vote on Trump's pick.

[_Xenophon]

eta: If you posted some sort of corroboration like I did somewhere in the thread I apologize for having missed it. I can go back through the thread and find it.

- Doc

Apologies Doc, I missed this edit last night. I didn't post anything additional because I frankly hate formatting my posts from mobile. If there are are still some questions about his defensive and evasive responses to questions of his drinking I'll be happy to elaborate but I think it has been pretty well hit on in this and the Prager thread.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

It just blows my mind that Republicans think they're in position to whine and moan about unfair tactics by Democrats or politicizing during a Supreme Court appointment.

Anyone remember Merrick Garland who never even got a vote because Republicans said the election was almost a year away? Then with another election just two months away they're desperately trying to rush to vote on Trump's pick.

We actually talked a bit about this back in July:

viewtopic.php?p=1128480#p1128480

I think the Democrats should repay the GOP in kind for what they did with Obama's nomination Merrick Garland.

- Doc

The Democrats are not that politically savvy.

Like many people who are ethically challenged, you confuse will to do something with savvy to do it. "You're just not smart enough to lie like me." No, subs, some people are just more ethical. The Democrats mostly need to be encouraged to be more politically shameless, not more savvy.

At the time I had in mind the Democrats should find a way to delay, stall, filibuster, whathaveyou. Just find a way to deny Trump two appointments. I had forgotten that the Repubs literally re-wrote the rule book for that sort of thing, not allowing the Democrats to do what they did under Obama's Presidency. They won the majority, and then rigged the game.

So, the Democrats went low. Like. They really, really, really went low. This stuff where they have half the nation calling Kavanaugh a rapist is a problem, but that's where we're at now. To be honest, I don't really believe most people believe the accusations, but there's this odd phenomenon where there's this tacit acknowledgement people are participating in the lie for the greater good. Kind of like how a lot of people on the Right, publicly, say they don't like Trump but we know they want him their for the 'greater good'.

I would've preferred Gunnar's protests about Kavanaugh's perjury been the angle the Democrats took because that's a legitimate, provable, very real concern about Kavanaugh's professional conduct. That, hands down, is more dangerous than what he did as a teen at a party.

But we can how much traction that got. And we see how much traction calling him a rapist gets. And here we are.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Intellectual dishonesty is so rife in conservatism that conservatives not acting in bad faith shock me. Kavanaugh being a shameless liar is extremely on brand. What the hell happened? My very liberal friends will tell you that this is just what conservativism has always been like, but that's not true at all.

Is it that there's something about how conservative power structures operate that cause the most dishonest characters to rise to the top? Maybe. Something not appreciated by the general public is that non-conservative thinking so thoroughly dominates intellectuals that the few well-qualified people conservatives have to get funnelled up the ranks can be really goofy sorts of people. If you make it through advanced education down-the-line thinking what passes for current mainstream conservative orthodoxy, something's off. Depending on your major, you won't even be able to pass tests without something giving. Maybe this predisposes dishonesty.

Or is it, as I fear, that conservative culture itself inculcates dishonesty? I have extensive experience with hardcore religious people culturally being into what people on this board would call, "lying for the lord" and maybe that mentality has infected conservatism. There's already substantial overlap between evangelical culture, where lying for the lord is as culturally normal as anything, and conservative politics. There's certainly the right ingredients there: a sense of aggrievedness and inherent moral superiority coupled with life experience defending hard to defend views.

[_EAllusion]

So, the Democrats went low. Like. They really, really, really went low. This stuff where they have half the nation calling Kavanaugh a rapist is a problem, but that's where we're at now.

I don't like the people who are so absolutely certain that Kavanaugh is a rapist (not even an attempted rapist) that they speak as though that can be taken as a self-evident premise. At the same time, to paraphrase Nate Silver, I can't understand concluding that he's almost certainly innocent. That makes no sense. It's an inherently plausible allegation from a credible witness and he's pretty clearly lying about the peripheral details for who knows what reason. The best case scenario is there's just not enough there to believe it. If I had to be a decider, I'd say it's more likely than not that he did it, but not so likely that I'd convict him in a court of law.

To the idea that this is just a Democrat poison-pill tactic, that seems to be flawed given how easy it would be for Republicans to push someone else through if they wanted. Democrats are making all the political hay they can out of the situation, but to me it looks like that's just because it fell into their lap.