President Trump

[YourGrandpa]

The reality is, this was a last ditch effort to delay/disqualify the Kavanaugh appointment beyond the primary elections in hopes the Dem/Rep occupation of the Senate would shift in the Dems favor. The Dems did not want to be the minority in the Senate and the Supreme Court. This political tactic had zero concern about Kavanaugh or how the women involved may or may not have been treated.

[raw]

The entire process surrounding him sickens me as an American.

Can you explain what specifically sickens you? Was it the selection of the specific person or his political affiliation? Was it the accusations or the timing of the accusations? I'm curious.

Senator Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell's behaviors specifically. Kavanaugh despite any accusations was a poor candidate and his behavior throughout the entire process was clear he does not have the temperament nor balance required for this extremely significant role in our country. Not to mention, this is a lifetime appointment and this dude was rushed through for the sake of Midterms.

[raw]

Lessons Learned since 2016: DO NOT ATTEMPT TO REASON WITH A TRUMP SUPPORTER! It's a fruitless endeavor.

[YourGrandpa]

Senator Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell's behaviors specifically. Kavanaugh despite any accusations was a poor candidate and his behavior throughout the entire process was clear he does not have the temperament nor balance required for this extremely significant role in our country. Not to mention, this is a lifetime appointment and this dude was rushed through for the sake of Midterms.

Poor candidate, for who? He's a Yale graduate that has severed as a judge in the highest levels of court for many years.

What do you mean by "rushed"?

Kavanaugh was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by President Bush in 2003. His confirmation hearings were contentious; they stalled for three years over charges of partisanship. He was ultimately confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in May 2006 after a series of negotiations between Democratic and Republican U.S. Senators.

He was certainly vetted.

A conservative judge appointed by a Republican president shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. If he was a Democrat with the same background and experience he would be a slam dunk for either party. No additional vetting required.

Oh btw, if that last remark was directed at me, I'm not a Trump supporter.

[Transient]

He perjured himself multiple times, that alone was reason not to confirm.

[YourGrandpa]

In your opinion, of course.

[raw]

Senator Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell's behaviors specifically. Kavanaugh despite any accusations was a poor candidate and his behavior throughout the entire process was clear he does not have the temperament nor balance required for this extremely significant role in our country. Not to mention, this is a lifetime appointment and this dude was rushed through for the sake of Midterms.

Poor candidate, for who? He's a Yale graduate that has severed as a judge in the highest levels of court for many years.

What do you mean by "rushed"?

Kavanaugh was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by President Bush in 2003. His confirmation hearings were contentious; they stalled for three years over charges of partisanship. He was ultimately confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in May 2006 after a series of negotiations between Democratic and Republican U.S. Senators.

He was certainly vetted.

A conservative judge appointed by a Republican president shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. If he was a Democrat with the same background and experience he would be a slam dunk for either party. No additional vetting required.

Oh btw, if that last remark was directed at me, I'm not a Trump supporter.

First, even the person who recommended Kavanaugh said there was no significance in his choice. He is literally quoted as saying they have a list of 25 Republican judges that represent what they want and they could have thrown a dart at the list and picked one. Oh, and the "vetting" only goes a few levels deep and wouldn't uncover what was uncovered in the confirmation hearings.

As far as a conservative judge, no, it doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is the lengths these assholes will go to put "their man" in place without any real investigation. The senate judiciary committee set the scope of the investigation and the white house blocked it. Certainly there was a pro-conservative judge they could have supported that didn't shit the bed in the public eye. However, Grassley and McConnell pushed ahead with Kavanaugh as a big "fuck you" to the Democrats as well as the rest of America.

No, the last comment wasn't directed at you. It's directed to those it applies to.

[raw]

In your opinion, of course.

We wouldn't have to rely on opinion if the Republicans in power weren't so hell-bent on obstructing justice to cater to their personal narratives.

[YourGrandpa]

I'm not going to prolong this discussion with what was or was not substantiated. I'll just say this. If the shoe was on the democratic party's foot, this would have went the exact same way. To label this type of political wrangling Republican or Democrat is naive. This our special interest run government doing what is best for them. If you think otherwise, you're politically bias.

[raw]

LOL Thanks for the judgments and the avoidance of any substance Gramps. As expected, you came with nothing to offer and everything to say.

[Κracus]

Didn't the repubs block Obama from putting a democratic judge? They should really rename themselves to the hypocritical party.

Your party affiliation should be completely removed from being nominated to this position anyway, it's pretty stupid to have so many partisan people in that position of power.

[raw]

Didn't the repubs block Obama from putting a democratic judge? They should really rename themselves to the hypocritical party.

Your party affiliation should be completely removed from being nominated to this position anyway, it's pretty stupid to have so many partisan people in that position of power.

Yeah, Merrick Garland. McConnell back then told Obama he can't have a supreme court justice and bragged how he stopped the supreme court from having an odd number of justices which made it a constant stale-mate.

[Transient]

In your opinion, of course.

No, it was a statement of fact. Look it up.

[YourGrandpa]

LOL Thanks for the judgments and the avoidance of any substance Gramps. As expected, you came with nothing to offer and everything to say.

What is left to be said? It's only a matter of your opinion at this point. But I'm willing to remain impartial if there is something specific you want to discuss. It is kind of funny how you don't see the Democrats attempt to block the Kavanaugh appointment as having the same motivation as the Republicans blocking Obama's appointment.

[YourGrandpa]

No, it was a statement of fact. Look it up.

I can't and neither can you.

[raw]

LOL Thanks for the judgments and the avoidance of any substance Gramps. As expected, you came with nothing to offer and everything to say.

What is left to be said? It's only a matter of your opinion at this point. But I'm willing to remain impartial if there is something specific you want to discuss. It is kind of funny how you don't see the Democrats attempt to block the Kavanaugh appointment as having the same motivation as the Republicans blocking Obama's appointment.

There's plenty to be said. However, it's quite clear you're only here to pick apart other people's talking points without offering any counter of substance. For the record, I'm not even a Democrat and you're right, they play their games too. However, as an American I'm pissed off at the obvious games the Republican party plays. It's like every so often when they actually win they revel in it and act like they have a shopping spree for 30 minutes. It's pure chaos and they've proven over time they do not care about the American public as a party.

Old people rave about the Regan days but he was the first one to approve amendments into the Glass-Stegal act. Clinton was a piece of shit but publicly people liked him. He destabilized Haiti and meddled in affairs we had no business in. Bush (both of them) were shit!

Trump, that dude is a loser and has been his entire life. NY, his home town hates him. But hey, let's continue to play tit-for-tat (well, the dems did it first1) as we watch our country erode in front of our eyes.

Let's talk about climate change? Why are we the only civilized nation of our size not doing anything to protect our world and co-exist with nature as unobtrusively as possible? Why are we trying to bring back coal?

SOOOOO MUCH is going on and it can't all be ignored or trivialized down to some BS Trump-sayings.

[raw]

No, it was a statement of fact. Look it up.

I can't and neither can you.

This is actually correct. The administration as well as the GOP senators ensured that no one will have the facts. That in itself is a crime..but hey the Democrats!

[YourGrandpa]

Both political parties are corrupt, rifled with special interest lackeys who could care less about Americans. They are equally evil and will continue to bankrupt this country in every way imaginable until we the people stand up as a whole. But until we can see past the separatist ideals promoted by each party and their associated media outlets, we're doomed to keep electing these self serving sacks of trash. Blaming one party is exactly what both parties. They don't care who you blame or why. Because that blame equals the proliferation of their two party reign and less of a chance for change.

[Transient]

No, it was a statement of fact. Look it up.

I can't and neither can you.

His testimony is public information, as are the interviews people gave which refuted his claims. I'm sorry if you're too willfully ignorant to want to do a little research yourself, but I promise you the information is out there.

Here are a few off the top of my head which amount to perjury:
1) He said a Devil's Triangle was a drinking game with cups and quarters. LOL.
2) He said he didn't drink excessively, but many people, including friends of his, have said that he was frequently drunk throughout college. He even mentioned it himself in his yearbook AND in public while giving speeches years ago.
3) He received stolen information about judicial nominations back in 2003 and then lied about it being stolen while under oath in 2006.
4) He lied about when he learned about Ramirez's accusations. He said he read about it when it made headlines in the New Yorker, but text messages prove he talked with friends about it prior to the news story.

Not to mention the other questionable shit he said, like that "boofing" meant farting, or that "Renate Alumnius" were just friends of hers, or that his "Ralph Club" comment was that he throws up when he eats spicy food. I mean come on.

[YourGrandpa]

His testimony is public information, as are the interviews people gave which refuted his claims.

He said she said accounts don’t = facts. There are also people that support his claims. But in your OPINION he lied.

I'm sorry if you're too willfully ignorant to want to do a little research yourself, but I promise you the information is out there.

Calm down Tranicunt.

Here are a few off the top of my head which amount to perjury:

In your OPINION they’re perjury.

1) He said a Devil's Triangle was a drinking game with cups and quarters.

Webster lacks an accepted definition. But in your OPINION he lied.

2) He said he didn't drink excessively, but many people, including friends of his, have said that he was frequently drunk throughout college. He even mentioned it himself in his yearbook AND in public while giving speeches years ago.

Are you referring to the claim he made about never blacking out? Drinking frequently is different than drinking until you black out. Excessive is also relative, open to interpretation. There are also classmates that have made claims in favor of Kavanaugh, contrary to the ones you’re refencing. Since there are no videos, beer receipts, DUIs, etc. These aren’t facts. This is more he said she said. But in your OPINION he lied.

3) He received stolen information about judicial nominations back in 2003 and then lied about it being stolen while under oath in 2006.

His testimony was that he didn’t know the information was stolen. Since there is no way to prove otherwise his word carries as much weight as anyone else’s. But in your OPINION he lied.

4) He lied about when he learned about Ramirez's accusations. He said he read about it when it made headlines in the New Yorker, but text messages prove he talked with friends about it prior to the news story.

Every article I’ve read about this, the authors are carful to use phrase like “suggest Kavanaugh's team” and “imply Kavanaugh had been”. There was nothing openly accusing Kavanaugh of sending the text messages himself. But in your OPINION he lied.

Not to mention the other questionable shit he said, like that "boofing" meant farting, or that "Renate Alumnius" were just friends of hers, or that his "Ralph Club" comment was that he throws up when he eats spicy food. I mean come on.

More conjecture and speculation. Nothing provable. But again, in your OPINION he lied.

Hopefully by now you're beginning to understand how political bias and blind conviction can guide some people down the wrong path. The day we start convicting/penalizing people on hearsay is the day we've truly lost it all.

BLNT.

[Transient]

Webster lacks an accepted definition.

LOL please.

Excessive is also relative, open to interpretation. There are also classmates that have made claims in favor of Kavanaugh, contrary to the ones you’re refencing. Since there are no videos, beer receipts, DUIs, etc. These aren’t facts.

As I said, he himself has admitted to his excessive drinking. He did it on tape in public years ago.

His testimony was that he didn’t know the information was stolen.

He denied even receiving the documents. He got caught in that lie, and then said he didn't know they were stolen. They were labeleled "not for distribution".

Every article I’ve read about this, the authors are carful to use phrase like “suggest Kavanaugh's team” and “imply Kavanaugh had been”. There was nothing openly accusing Kavanaugh of sending the text messages himself.

Sure, everyone but Kavanaugh himself was involved. These messages started months before he even had the nomination.

More conjecture and speculation. Nothing provable.

Hence why I used the phrase "not to mention". Do you not know how that figure of speech works?

Hopefully by now you're beginning to understand how political bias and blind conviction can guide some people down the wrong path. The day we start convicting/penalizing people on hearsay is the day we've truly lost it all.

I don't want to send him to jail or even take away his job. I just don't want to give him a promotion. Getting the job of Supreme Court Justice should be the highest bar possible for any job in the country. He lied under oath multiple times, gave evasive answers, and erupted in anger during his closing remarks. His final words were highly partisan and biased against Democrats and by his own standards from past statements, he doesn't meet his own standards.

If Democrats were so blind from their political bias, then why did Gorsuch's nomination go through without a fight?

[YourGrandpa]

In your OPINION he was lying...

Look, this was a last ditch effort by the Dems to delay the appointment. Nothing more, nothing less. This is blatantly obvious by the timing. The Dems knew they didn't have anything that would legally hold up in court. So they tried a hail Mary attempted rape accusation, in hopes the recent "me too" movement might give it more punch. But it didn't work out.

The Dems didn't have a problem with Kavanaugh personally or professionally. The Dems didn't care about the women's claims or how they were affected. All they cared about were the political ramifications. If you believe otherwise, you're foolish.

[Transient]

Again, if they wanted to muck up the Supreme Court, why didn't they do this with Gorsuch?

Are you trying to tell me that the Dems colluded with Ford? She recounted her story to her husband and therapist over a decade ago. Ramirez also told her story prior to Kavanaugh's name being floated about. LOL talk about blind conviction.

[YourGrandpa]

The Kavanaugh appointment assured the SCOTUS would have conservative/republican majority. Especially considering Ruth G. (Dem) is 85 and Stephen B. (Dem) is 80. Both spots could come up for reappointment during this presidency.

Ford's story was inconsistent, contested, lacked corroboration and originally didn't identify Kavanaugh. Ramirez's claim of misconduct has also been refuted.

There's no PROOF. It's all hearsay. Should we listen? Sure. Should the information be used against him? Of course not. If Kavanaugh was a true sexual predator, wouldn't this behavior have continued later on in life?

Come on man, you're grasping at straws.

[Transient]

Straws?

Four accusations ranging from sexual assault to rape. If it was just one and there was no corroboration, I'd leave it alone. But Ford documented her assault to multiple people. So did others who accused him of shit. And not every rapist continues to rape their entire life.

There were multiple instances of perjury, combative answers during hearings, refusal to answer questions, and noncommittal answers. He yelled and made multiple accusations against the Dems during closing statements, revealing his partisanship.

The ACLU opposed his nomination. Over 2,400 law professors from nearly 200 different firms signed a letter opposing him due to his lack of judicial restraint. Did you know there are actually statutes governing bias and recusal that say judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair? A separate letter from over 900 female law professors asked the Senate to reject his nomination.

Straws?