Kreepy Kavanaugh

[phrodeau]

Always fantasyland with you.

This will be a stack of 302's. Nothing more.

They will be added to Kavanaugh's file. No conclusions or judgements will be offered.

The 302's will be leaked by the Dems and they will seize on this or that as "proving" something. They will demand the hearings be reopened. Again. Having successfully stalled over for three weeks, they hope to do it indefinately.

The Republicans will vote down that idiotic motion.

The vote scheduled on the floor will happen as now scheduled.

Kavenaugh will be confirmed with 53, maybe 55 votes.

Dem's will use this as a midterm election issue and depending on the gullibility of the American public they will either pay for that or not.

302's from the FBI have no real value. Judge Kavanaugh deems it so.

This guy should have been impeached years ago.

 

[Kirkrapine]

The Democrat Party has self destructed here.

The polls show a blue wave in November. You don't really believe it's not going to happen, do you?

 

[Comshaw]

The polls show a blue wave in November. You don't really believe it's not going to happen, do you?

AWHUMMM......That's was the projections for the 2016 presidential elections too. Didn't happen did it? Don't bank too much on polls. They missed it then, they could miss it again. And one very, very good way to make a swing and a miss happen is over confidence in a blue wave happening. Even a dead wasp can sting.

Comshaw

 

[Kirkrapine]

AWHUMMM......That's was the projections for the 2016 presidential elections too. Didn't happen did it?

Only because of the Electoral College, which is not a factor here.

 

[Oblimo]

AWHUMMM......That's was the projections for the 2016 presidential elections too. Didn't happen did it? Don't bank too much on polls. They missed it then, they could miss it again. And one very, very good way to make a swing and a miss happen is over confidence in a blue wave happening. Even a dead wasp can sting.

Comshaw

Actually, a bunch of polls were spot on. IIRC, 365 gave Trump a 30% chance to win. And the popular vote played out the way the 30% scenario said it would.

The mistake was a certain politician’s campaign looking at their 70% chance of winning and getting so giddy some of the fools working for it nearly spent campaign money on celebratory fireworks before the damn campaign was over.

 

[Oblimo]

Only because of the Electoral College, which is not a factor here.

Polls aren’t predictors of the future. They indicate the success or failure of your past actions.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The Four Horseturds Of The Apocalypse (NotBusybody, NotAJ, NotVetteman and NotHashtag) have combined for over 900 pists in this thread.

 

[Ann_Tagonist]

How many pists by the not robbs?

 

[KeithD]

What part of outlining exactly what the procedure is going forward is distracting and deflecting?

Compare and contrast that with the actual distraction of your just making shit uo.

You didn't back up your "fantasyland" claim on what I've posted. That's distraction and deflection. Go to hell until you stop your silly games.

 

[KeithD]

They did not "let Gorsuch go through" they thought they had the votes to block him. They foolishly thought that McConnell was bluffing and would not invoke the Reid, nuclear option. They gambled and lost. Stupidly so. Republicans RINOS Awould not have gone nuclear for Kavenaugh under the current situation.

Stop pretending history didn't happen. Gorsuch's confirmation went through 54 to 45, including three Democrats voting for him. Just stop your lying.

 

[Comshaw]

Only because of the Electoral College, which is not a factor here.

Actually, a bunch of polls were spot on. IIRC, 365 gave Trump a 30% chance to win. And the popular vote played out the way the 30% scenario said it would.

The mistake was a certain politician’s campaign looking at their 70% chance of winning and getting so giddy some of the fools working for it nearly spent campaign money on celebratory fireworks before the damn campaign was over.

It was the electoral college that made the difference in that election. But the pollsters thought they had taken that into consideration. What they ended up doing was screwing the pooch.

I don't remember seeing one poll of any note that projecting Trumps win. Not one. If I'm wrong point me in the direction so I can be corrected.

Either one of those doesn't matter though. the fact is Trump won when most everyone was saying he didn't stand a snowballs chance in hell. He won because, as you say, they spent money on fireworks rather then campaigning. Over confidence in a win. And it could happen a second time if the Democrats think they think have a majority of elections won because of a "Blue Wave". Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.




Comshaw

 

[KeithD]

At the time the pollsters thought that only Americans were working on the election.

 

[Comshaw]

At the time the pollsters thought that only Americans were working on the election.

Yep and the corrections for that have been pretty much ignored for the last two years.

The point I've been trying to make is stung once, be cautious the second time you go near that bees nest. Once complacency because of a "Blue Wave" sets in it's easy to think, "They'll be a whole lot of other people voting I don't need to" while the opposition has mobilized enough votes to win. An election (especially this one) is like a fight. You need to go into it not with the thought of just winning but beating your opponent until they can't get up or threaten you again. Anything less is dangerous.


Comshaw

 

[KeithD]

Yep and the corrections for that have been pretty much ignored for the last two years.

The point I've been trying to make is stung once, be cautious the second time you go near that bees nest. Once complacency because of a "Blue Wave" sets in it's easy to think, "They'll be a whole lot of other people voting I don't need to" while the opposition has mobilized enough votes to win. An election (especially this one) is like a fight. You need to go into it not with the thought of just winning but beating your opponent until they can't get up or threaten you again. Anything less is dangerous.


Comshaw

Yes, I have tried to be careful not to make predictions about November's election--to the point of noting how short a typical American voter's attention span is.

Of course Que will post otherwise to try to distract and deflect.

 

[Comshaw]

So...the investigation begins. And right out of the gate they have at least one classmate that is contradicting Kavanaugh's claim of abstinence from alcohol while in high school AND college. In essence he lied about it. So what else has he lied about? The sexual assaults that several women have claimed? The stolen records while working for Bush? What else? In my experience when a person lies about things like how much they drink, it's only the tip of the iceberg. I think he's an alcoholic. As a recovering alcoholic I know that lying for an alcoholic lying is like breathing, it comes naturally.

And before you start posting a small prevarication like that means nothing", what would you be posting if it was a liberal judge in the hot seat? To my mind it makes no difference if they have a conservative or liberal bend, what does is the morals and character of the person who will be sitting on the high court. These are the 7 who will be effecting our lives for generations. We need the best we can find to fill that seat.


https://www.mail.com/news/world/8766422-fbi-interviews-accuser-yale-friend-remembers-heavy.html#.23140-stage-hero1-2
FBI interviews accuser; Yale friend remembers heavy drinker

..."Kavanaugh has denied assaulting Ford. In a statement released Sunday, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh's said he is "deeply troubled by what has been a blatant mischaracterization by Brett himself of his drinking at Yale." Charles "Chad" Ludington, who now teaches at North Carolina State University, said he was friend of Kavanaugh's at Yale and that Kavanaugh was "a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker."...



Comshaw

 

[doowdniw]

302's from the FBI have no real value. Judge Kavanaugh deems it so.

He wrote an opinion not long ago supporting the probative value of polygraphs in investigations. Based on his body signs from Thursday, those needles would be off the charts if he ever had the guts to sit down for one himself (it will never happen). Dude was exhibiting the driest mouth I have ever seen - Period!

 

[beew]

How many pists by the not robbs?

I used to get upset by Rob's "prairee nigger, gook, die of cancer, your kids should die in a fire, flathead, rent a gook, mail order bride etc.etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.etc. " trolling.

But now that it's common GB knowledge that HE is behind the legion of Stainman accounts,
I find Rob to be so amusing ridiculous-amusing.

 

[phrodeau]

I used to get upset by Rob's "prairee nigger, gook, die of cancer, your kids should die in a fire, flathead, rent a gook, mail order bride etc.etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.etc. " trolling.

But now that it's common GB knowledge that HE is behind the legion of Stainman accounts,
I find Rob to be so amusing ridiculous-amusing.

Is there a reason we should care what you think?

 

[beew]

Is there a reason we should care what you think?

I wasn't talking to you.
So fart along the brilliant Trump good versus Trump bad "debates".

 

[Kirkrapine]

It was the electoral college that made the difference in that election. But the pollsters thought they had taken that into consideration. What they ended up doing was screwing the pooch.

I don't remember seeing one poll of any note that projecting Trumps win. Not one. If I'm wrong point me in the direction so I can be corrected.

There was one political scientist, I don't recall his name, who, based on analysis of past elections, predicted Trump would win.

He also, based on Trump's personal history, predicted he would be impeached.

 

[beew]

There was one political scientist, I don't recall his name, who, based on analysis of past elections, predicted Trump would win.

He also, based on Trump's personal history, predicted he would be impeached.

Are you referring to Mark Blyth?

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-11-15/global-trumpism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEuxZZCTTYc


He predicted Trump's election & the rise of both positive and negative nationalism in Europe.
But I didn't keep up since then, I don't know much about his latest opinions.

 

[Comshaw]

They did not "let Gorsuch go through" they thought they had the votes to block him. They foolishly thought that McConnell was bluffing and would not invoke the Reid, nuclear option. They gambled and lost. Stupidly so. Republicans RINOS Awould not have gone nuclear for Kavenaugh under the current situation.

Let's talk about that "nuclear option". The Democrats talked of using it but never did. The Republicans blamed the Dems for threatening to use it so they claimed that gave them the right to use it. Since when is talking about robbing a bank and robbing the bank the same thing? That's very much like claiming that the choice of a Supreme court justice needed to wait 9 months so the people could have their say, but now it's a hurry to get Kavenaugh on the bench and to hell with the peoples voice. And no it doesn't make a difference because that was a Presidential election. This election could be as influential in the seating of a justice (because of the possible change in the Senate who are the ones who confirm the presidents choice) as the one in 2016. And if the people decide to make it so, it's voicing their preference on how our government is run.

It seems to me what's good for goose is good for the goosie. Anything else is just two faced prevarication.


Comshaw

 

[Kirkrapine]

Putting all this in its proper perspective: In hindsight, I hope nobody here seriously believes or would argue that letting Clarence Thomas on the Court was the right thing to do. That was a regrettable decision, and seating Kavanaugh would be even more regrettable.

Nobody has yet contradicted this, from which I infer nobody disagrees.

 

[Comshaw]

There was one political scientist, I don't recall his name, who, based on analysis of past elections, predicted Trump would win.

He also, based on Trump's personal history, predicted he would be impeached.

You're correct. I forgot about that guy. If I remember right he has a long line of correct predictions of presidential wins. As far as Trump being impeached, we must wait and see.

Still the vast majority of polls and people assumed HRC was a shoo in. It happened once, it can very well happen again.


comshaw

 

[bigsly]

So...the investigation begins. And right out of the gate they have at least one classmate that is contradicting Kavanaugh's claim of abstinence from alcohol while in high school AND college. In essence he lied about it.

“I drank beer with my friends,” Kavanaugh told senators in his opening statement, describing his younger days. “Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-his-drinking-habits/?utm_term=.b683f494ad9c

If I recall correctly Kavanaugh claimed abstinence from sex while in high school AND many years after. Perhaps the FBI can find someone who can contradict that.