It won’t. Americans are morons.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
It won’t. Americans are morons.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation
You have your report. Now time to decide. https://www.breitbart.com/big-gover...s-against-kavanaugh-in-fbi-interview-reports/
You have your report. Now time to decide. https://www.breitbart.com/big-gover...s-against-kavanaugh-in-fbi-interview-reports/
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation
If you actually wanted a blue wave, you better hope that to be true, because the public has become wise to your tactics, and first time voters are even coming out now.
If you actually wanted a blue wave, you better hope that to be true, because the public has become wise to your tactics, and first time voters are even coming out now.
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation
Add the National Council of Churches to the list
Add the National Council of Churches to the list
ScoobyDoo
NPC
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation
The Atlantic with a pretty good article (not surprisingly).
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...avanaugh-and-problem-believesurvivors/572083/
The Atlantic with a pretty good article (not surprisingly).
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...avanaugh-and-problem-believesurvivors/572083/
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation
Starting to see all the same signs I saw after the Billy Bush video. I do not have a good feeling about this nomination or the midterms anymore.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/conservative-women-kavanaugh-ford/572023/
Starting to see all the same signs I saw after the Billy Bush video. I do not have a good feeling about this nomination or the midterms anymore.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/conservative-women-kavanaugh-ford/572023/
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">STATUS OF SUPPLEMENTAL KAVANAUGH INVESTIGATION<br><br>Kavanaugh: NOT INTERVIEWED<br>Ford: NOT INTERVIEWED<br>Ford (18 corroborating witnesses): IGNORED<br>Ramirez (20 corroborating witnesses): IGNORED<br>Swetnick: NOT INTERVIEWED<br>Swetnick (1 sworn corroborating witness): IGNORED<br>Accuser 4: IGNORED</p>— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) <a href="https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1047699572196294656?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">STATUS OF SUPPLEMENTAL KAVANAUGH INVESTIGATION<br><br>Kavanaugh: NOT INTERVIEWED<br>Ford: NOT INTERVIEWED<br>Ford (18 corroborating witnesses): IGNORED<br>Ramirez (20 corroborating witnesses): IGNORED<br>Swetnick: NOT INTERVIEWED<br>Swetnick (1 sworn corroborating witness): IGNORED<br>Accuser 4: IGNORED</p>— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) <a href="https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1047699572196294656?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation
Not to mince words, but couldn't there only be three witnesses per Dr. Ford's account: Kavanaugh, Judge, and herself. Anyone beyond would be offering corroborating hearsay, wouldn't they?
Not to mince words, but couldn't there only be three witnesses per Dr. Ford's account: Kavanaugh, Judge, and herself. Anyone beyond would be offering corroborating hearsay, wouldn't they?
Wisko McBadgerton
Teaching you how to Bucky.
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation
I don't "conveniently leave out" part of Keyser's statement. Her statement through her lawyer was as I described at the time of the hearing. She amended her statement after the hearing. That's why your quote, which I believe is from Oct. 1st, says "as my client already."
And you're right, it's quite a lot of semantics. As Kavanaugh is accused by an uncorroborated allegation that is very, very lacking in specifics that can be assailed, it seems fair to me that he is given a wide road in mounting a defense to the allegation, and the benefit of the doubt in semantical questions. For example the statement "the drinking age was 18" was shouted about. "He lied! It wasn't 18 in MD after July 1, 1982! Perjury!!" But allowing for a slightly broader meaning and context, that statement is true.
Some may disagree that Kavanaugh should be given latitude in his statements, but I don't. Suppose I went to the school at which you teach, and tell them that you and two other people, one named Josh, assaulted me on a street in Minneapolis. I can't be sure exactly where or when, but in the downtown area probably about 7 years ago. I only remember specifically there being a blue Ford parked by a dumpster and that one of the streetlights was out. But nevertheless, I'm 100% certain it was you that actually assaulted me. Now I'm a person of excellent character and can produce many, many people who would attest that they believe me and I would never falsely accused anyone, even a gopher fan, no matter how much I despise them. I don't want to press charges but I certainly don't think you are the kind of person that should be teaching, and I felt it was my duty to come forward. We locate a friend of yours named Josh who says that he doesn't remember it, he used to drink quite a bit, never saw you assault anyone ever, and doesn't believe you ever would. 200 other people, mostly gopher fans but a few Cloudies, vouch for your character.
This is essentially the situation, and I do think you should be given quite a lot of leeway in your defense. You should be able to state things like, "Wisko, may be known as a fine person to his friends, but his friends are all disgusting Badger fans. He says Josh was there, but Josh says he never saw me do anything of the sort, nor would I. Wisko can't even say where or when this happened. Now I don't doubt Wisko was assaulted sometime or somewhere, but it wasn't me. It was probably burd. Wisko's story is complete BS, just look at my record of rescuing puppies, for crying out loud."
I don't "conveniently leave out" part of Keyser's statement. Her statement through her lawyer was as I described at the time of the hearing. She amended her statement after the hearing. That's why your quote, which I believe is from Oct. 1st, says "as my client already."
And you're right, it's quite a lot of semantics. As Kavanaugh is accused by an uncorroborated allegation that is very, very lacking in specifics that can be assailed, it seems fair to me that he is given a wide road in mounting a defense to the allegation, and the benefit of the doubt in semantical questions. For example the statement "the drinking age was 18" was shouted about. "He lied! It wasn't 18 in MD after July 1, 1982! Perjury!!" But allowing for a slightly broader meaning and context, that statement is true.
Some may disagree that Kavanaugh should be given latitude in his statements, but I don't. Suppose I went to the school at which you teach, and tell them that you and two other people, one named Josh, assaulted me on a street in Minneapolis. I can't be sure exactly where or when, but in the downtown area probably about 7 years ago. I only remember specifically there being a blue Ford parked by a dumpster and that one of the streetlights was out. But nevertheless, I'm 100% certain it was you that actually assaulted me. Now I'm a person of excellent character and can produce many, many people who would attest that they believe me and I would never falsely accused anyone, even a gopher fan, no matter how much I despise them. I don't want to press charges but I certainly don't think you are the kind of person that should be teaching, and I felt it was my duty to come forward. We locate a friend of yours named Josh who says that he doesn't remember it, he used to drink quite a bit, never saw you assault anyone ever, and doesn't believe you ever would. 200 other people, mostly gopher fans but a few Cloudies, vouch for your character.
This is essentially the situation, and I do think you should be given quite a lot of leeway in your defense. You should be able to state things like, "Wisko, may be known as a fine person to his friends, but his friends are all disgusting Badger fans. He says Josh was there, but Josh says he never saw me do anything of the sort, nor would I. Wisko can't even say where or when this happened. Now I don't doubt Wisko was assaulted sometime or somewhere, but it wasn't me. It was probably burd. Wisko's story is complete BS, just look at my record of rescuing puppies, for crying out loud."
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation
Funny you should mention that. I'm seeing a well coordinated effort in many a news outlet saying that somehow this Kavanaugh situation has inspired a boomlet of GOP support. We'll find out soon enough but I've never been in the camp that thinks Trump Humpers won't support Trump backed candidates (with the possible exception of Calgary Ted). The issue is do Dems turn out at Obama running for Prez type levels or do they revert back to sitting out elections? Republicans will vote. They always do. The question is do people who aren't in the cult vote as well.
Funny you should mention that. I'm seeing a well coordinated effort in many a news outlet saying that somehow this Kavanaugh situation has inspired a boomlet of GOP support. We'll find out soon enough but I've never been in the camp that thinks Trump Humpers won't support Trump backed candidates (with the possible exception of Calgary Ted). The issue is do Dems turn out at Obama running for Prez type levels or do they revert back to sitting out elections? Republicans will vote. They always do. The question is do people who aren't in the cult vote as well.
St. Clown
Ideas Posted are Likely Not My Own
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation
They can offer their experiences involving other events, establishing a pattern of disturbing behavior. The Hang-Out-Wang-Out behavior that might be a little wild for a drunken freshman at SCSU who's not on track to graduate, but it's a disturbing discovery of pattern for a man who paints himself as ready for the SCOTUS and eventual Catholic beatification.
They can offer their experiences involving other events, establishing a pattern of disturbing behavior. The Hang-Out-Wang-Out behavior that might be a little wild for a drunken freshman at SCSU who's not on track to graduate, but it's a disturbing discovery of pattern for a man who paints himself as ready for the SCOTUS and eventual Catholic beatification.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation
The nomination I dont know, the rest is just the usual press looking for proof things arent what they seem. The House is flipping for sure and the worst you can say about the Senate is it is back to the same odds as it was a month ago.
These articles popping up now are the same as the ones 3 weeks ago the other way. This enthusiasm gap bs because those types of indicators can change day to day and street to street. (and of course issue to issue) Guess what will happen on Monday if the Atlantic goes and talks to a bunch of liberal organizers after he gets confirmed...they will hear the same ****ed thing. They wont of course (because that is the answer everyone expects) but that is neither here nor there.
The Press is going to have a month of "sky is falling" for both sides for the next month. Trusting any of it is a fools errand.
The nomination I dont know, the rest is just the usual press looking for proof things arent what they seem. The House is flipping for sure and the worst you can say about the Senate is it is back to the same odds as it was a month ago.
These articles popping up now are the same as the ones 3 weeks ago the other way. This enthusiasm gap bs because those types of indicators can change day to day and street to street. (and of course issue to issue) Guess what will happen on Monday if the Atlantic goes and talks to a bunch of liberal organizers after he gets confirmed...they will hear the same ****ed thing. They wont of course (because that is the answer everyone expects) but that is neither here nor there.
The Press is going to have a month of "sky is falling" for both sides for the next month. Trusting any of it is a fools errand.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation
Exactly. The Press is acting like these Republican Voters werent voting before...they always were. (and most polls were even saying that) The difference is that the Dems who didnt vote last election were trending towards voting this time.
Exactly. The Press is acting like these Republican Voters werent voting before...they always were. (and most polls were even saying that) The difference is that the Dems who didnt vote last election were trending towards voting this time.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation
Yes and no. I can sense it. I see it with the people I talk to. Especially the people I know who are Trumpers. It's not just the press. And a month ago I did believe that the Dems had it going. But, the Kavanaugh thing has changed things. Everyone was glued to the TVs during that hearing last week and it fired up the Republican base. Mitch will get him through, he thinks it's his legacy to get the Court with a full anti-gay anti-abortion majority before he loses his leadership position.
Things can change. But, this is just like the Billy Bush video. Dems "thought" it helped them and it boomeranged.
North Dakota appears to be a loss for sure.
Yes and no. I can sense it. I see it with the people I talk to. Especially the people I know who are Trumpers. It's not just the press. And a month ago I did believe that the Dems had it going. But, the Kavanaugh thing has changed things. Everyone was glued to the TVs during that hearing last week and it fired up the Republican base. Mitch will get him through, he thinks it's his legacy to get the Court with a full anti-gay anti-abortion majority before he loses his leadership position.
Things can change. But, this is just like the Billy Bush video. Dems "thought" it helped them and it boomeranged.
North Dakota appears to be a loss for sure.
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation
This is a little off the path here, but it's something that I'm curious about. I didn't get to watch the testimony live, so I've only seen news clips of it. I was wondering if this came up at all.
It has to do with the captions in the yearbook that referred to Renate alumni and FFFF, etc...
I don't have any of my high school yearbooks around (fortunately), but as I recall we had our fair share of juvenile or "insider" quotes/captions under many of the photos. But at my school, people who were depicted in the photos didn't actually write the captions. There was a yearbook staff made up of a few kids from each class. They were in charge of taking and assembling the photo montages, making sure their were pictures of the various clubs and sports teams, writing the "clever" captions, etc...
When we got our yearbooks and opened them up to read them, one of things I recall is wondering what stupid things might be written about me or the group that I was in as depicted in that particular photo.
I had pretty much no input at all as to what was included in our yearbook, other than providing a photo and filling out a sheet that listed clubs, athletic teams etc..., that I participated in.
I don't know, maybe my school was different.
This is a little off the path here, but it's something that I'm curious about. I didn't get to watch the testimony live, so I've only seen news clips of it. I was wondering if this came up at all.
It has to do with the captions in the yearbook that referred to Renate alumni and FFFF, etc...
I don't have any of my high school yearbooks around (fortunately), but as I recall we had our fair share of juvenile or "insider" quotes/captions under many of the photos. But at my school, people who were depicted in the photos didn't actually write the captions. There was a yearbook staff made up of a few kids from each class. They were in charge of taking and assembling the photo montages, making sure their were pictures of the various clubs and sports teams, writing the "clever" captions, etc...
When we got our yearbooks and opened them up to read them, one of things I recall is wondering what stupid things might be written about me or the group that I was in as depicted in that particular photo.
I had pretty much no input at all as to what was included in our yearbook, other than providing a photo and filling out a sheet that listed clubs, athletic teams etc..., that I participated in.
I don't know, maybe my school was different.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation
You would think so...especially coming from the Party that impeached a President for consensual relations and lying about it.
But hey the Conservaderps have destroyed two branches with their crap already...might as well go for 3 and just end the charade.
You would think so...especially coming from the Party that impeached a President for consensual relations and lying about it.
But hey the Conservaderps have destroyed two branches with their crap already...might as well go for 3 and just end the charade.
St. Clown
Ideas Posted are Likely Not My Own
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation
There were two sections of my school's yearbook. There was the events, teams, and clubs section, along with some random shots of students doing various things throughout the school year, and then there were the individual photos divided by year and then alphabetically. The yearbook group had total control over the first section, but seniors were able to add a personal quip to their individual pictures. I don't remember my quip, nor what it even references when if I were to read it now.
- Status