Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 09-16-2019, 06:10 PM
eenerms is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Finally...Wisc...!
Posts: 2,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
So cutting through the crap you think they are saying he should be impeached to mean he should be investigated to see if there are grounds for impeachment?

I donít.
+1
  #152  
Old 09-16-2019, 06:55 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
As iiandyiiii has already suggested, a more thorough inquiry by the FBI, for example, would help separate evidence from hearsay. But that hasn't happened so far, and likely won't under the current administration.
Oh give us a break. iiandyiiii doesn't want a thorough investigation, he wants a show trial. His sole goal is to do political damage to the Republicans and put the fear of God into potential bad guys. No one is stupid enough to think we should have a thorough investigation into a 30 yr old crime with no witnesses or victim, for god's sake.

Last edited by CarnalK; 09-16-2019 at 06:56 PM.
  #153  
Old 09-16-2019, 06:57 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Oh give us a break. iiandyiiii doesn't want a thorough investigation, he wants a show trial. His sole goal is to do political damage to the Republicans. No one is stupid enough to think we should have a thorough investigation into a 30 yr old crime with no witnesses or victim, for god's sake.
Actually, I really do want a thorough investigation. No need for it to be televised. It could even be in secret, as long as the results are released in full.

I really actually care about this issue (sexual assault and rape and general mistreatment of women) a lot -- far more than short and medium term politics. At this point in time, every serious allegation, especially against powerful men, should be investigated thoroughly.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 09-16-2019 at 06:58 PM.
  #154  
Old 09-16-2019, 07:01 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,455
I believe you really care. Enough to generally be dishonest to combat it. Like here, pretending a 30 yr old crime with no witnesses or victim should be thoroughly investigated for purely justice concerns.
  #155  
Old 09-16-2019, 07:06 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I believe you really care. Enough to generally be dishonest to combat it. Like here, pretending a 30 yr old crime with no witnesses or victim should be thoroughly investigated for purely justice concerns.
I love the way you're avoiding personal attacks here; your laser-like focus on the facts really does you proud.
  #156  
Old 09-16-2019, 07:11 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I love the way you're avoiding personal attacks here; your laser-like focus on the facts really does you proud.
The facts are: this is a long past story with no witnesses or victim. When someone insists that this is a big new deal we should all start investigating, the only fact left to ponder is their motivation.

Last edited by CarnalK; 09-16-2019 at 07:12 PM.
  #157  
Old 09-16-2019, 07:33 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Because I don't see any other responses to this, YES. I would ABSOLUTELY and IMMEDIATELY push for RBG to be impeached if it had turned out that she had been a Nazi or KKK member. "Communist" is much more vague but since you put it in the same sentence as KKK or Nazi I would assume you're not talking about some softcore "spread the wealth" communism but the kind of bomb-throwing communists people were so worried about in the 60s. Under any of those scenarios, unless RBG had a very good explanation, I would want her impeached ASAP.
What would be a "very good explanation" in your view?
  #158  
Old 09-16-2019, 07:34 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
How about if you 'heard' that a co-worker had his bosses' dick thrust in his face, and a couple of other co-workers also 'heard' it? Every group of people has gossip - high school kids more than anyone, probably.

I'm guessing that if you had passed along that gossip, then someone came to you and said, "Will you testify in court?", you'd suddenly get very quiet. Because while the story has always been 'out there', you actually have no idea if it's true or not, and you have no business saying it was when it actually matters and isn't just gossip. That's probably where Stier is right now. And the fact that the supposed victim can't remember it happening at all is about the biggest red flag you could possibly see.

Do you remember the 'satanist day care' scare? Some people 'heard' things, and a couple of children, when prodded by adults, said that maybe something had happened. The result was a minor national panic, with people coming out of the woodwork with stories of satanist cults running daycares and strange rituals. None of it was true.

There's a reason we don't use hearsay in court, and why we have a statute of limitations. Thirty five year old memories are not reliable, especially when the 'victims' like Mrs Ramirez need six days of counselling by lawyers and activists before 'maybe remembering' that it 'might' have been Kavanaugh.

The Times is guilty of yellow journalism. Publishing a story based on hearsay, while neglecting known facts that cast doubt on your story, is a classic example of yellow journalism. If Congress impeached Kavanaugh based on hearsay, it would open the flood gates for impeachment hearings against anyone the current power brokers in Washington didn't like. It would be a very dangerous precedent, and in the future more likely to be employed against Democrats.

But by all means, let's lower the bar on impeachment because it might be slightly useful to do so today. What could go wrong?
I'm not suggesting impeachment on hearsay. I'm suggesting have FBI investigate as best they can, without a deadline or restrictions on who they can or cannot speak with. If they come up with zilch then that's what they report and that will have to be the end of it. Sure people will complain about that outcome, but at least due diligence will have been done.

There may not be a criminal trial and conviction due to the statute of limitations. But if there is credible evidence in support of the allegations against BT, then would it not be better for SCOTUS as an institution (and the country as a whole) to have him removed? I've no doubt Trump would replace him with another conservative judge so it would not necessarily be a real change to the composition of the court.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #159  
Old 09-16-2019, 07:36 PM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
What would be a "very good explanation" in your view?
Fake noose? It was just bunker room talk?

Last edited by Vinyl Turnip; 09-16-2019 at 07:38 PM.
  #160  
Old 09-16-2019, 07:36 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
What would be a "very good explanation" in your view?
There were very fine people, on both sides.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #161  
Old 09-16-2019, 07:58 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
The facts are: this is a long past story with no witnesses or victim. When someone insists that this is a big new deal we should all start investigating, the only fact left to ponder is their motivation.
But...there are witnesses?
  #162  
Old 09-16-2019, 08:15 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,455
Not to this new story. The person named as a witness isn't talking. Right now, two journalists say that these other two guys confirm that this other guy talked to the FBI about it. Or am I missing a piece?
  #163  
Old 09-16-2019, 08:38 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,618
I don't think there are actual witnesses to the Ramirez story either, FWIW.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 09-16-2019 at 08:39 PM.
  #164  
Old 09-16-2019, 08:47 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Not to this new story. The person named as a witness isn't talking. Right now, two journalists say that these other two guys confirm that this other guy talked to the FBI about it. Or am I missing a piece?
So what you are saying is that there appears to be a witness who talked to the FBI (according to other witnesses) but that no further investigation was undertaken to see if there were other witnesses or to establish the credibility of what that witness stated was true? And that alleged witness is not talking to the press.

Huh.

Events from decades ago can be investigated. Cases are harder to prove to be sure.


Anyway. The main person to benefit from this in the news cycle will be Biden. First it got his strange record player answer fairly forgotten about. And Warren (Harris too but no one cares about her anymore) has harmed herself by calling for impeachment at this point. Her continued rise means furthering expanding the groups she appeals to. Those who currently soft support Biden or who began to move from him to her (less hard left voters of all colors and demographics) will I believe find that call to be something not presidential, more akin to a Trumpian "Lock her up!" than to the respect for process they want to see. It certainly pushes me away from her. His take is much more appropriate and measured.
Quote:
"We must follow the evidence to wherever it leads," Biden said in a statement Sunday. "Doing this the right way is critically important in getting the truth and restoring the American people's faith in their government." ... "We need to get to the bottom of whether the Trump Administration and Senate Republicans pressured the FBI to ignore evidence or prevented them from following up on leads relating to Justice Kavanaugh's background investigation, subsequent allegations that arose, and the truthfulness of his testimony to the Senate," ...
We really don't need another president who sees a crowd and thinks the best thing to do is get in front of it with a pitchfork and a torch.
  #165  
Old 09-16-2019, 09:01 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
So what you are saying is that there appears to be a witness who talked to the FBI (according to other witnesses) but that no further investigation was undertaken to see if there were other witnesses or to establish the credibility of what that witness stated was true? And that alleged witness is not talking to the press.

Huh.

Events from decades ago can be investigated. Cases are harder to prove to be sure.
What I'm saying is that all we know is there may be a witness, we don't know what caveats and fogginess was in his interview. And the thing we shouldn't forget: the victim isn't claiming victimhood. Not remembering it at all, in fact. Don't know how many decades old crimes like that get investigated.
  #166  
Old 09-16-2019, 09:14 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
What would be a "very good explanation" in your view?
If the hypothetical she (or Kavanaugh for that matter) came forward, admitted what they did, and said something like, "I was really stupid in my younger days; I recognize that what I did was terrible, and it weighs heavily on me to this day that I was once that kind of person. I am very remorseful for what I have done, but that isn't who I am anymore" I'd at least hear them out.
  #167  
Old 09-17-2019, 04:07 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
What I'm saying is that all we know is there may be a witness, we don't know what caveats and fogginess was in his interview. And the thing we shouldn't forget: the victim isn't claiming victimhood. Not remembering it at all, in fact. Don't know how many decades old crimes like that get investigated.
A thorough investigation might answer questions like this, as well as finding more witnesses.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #168  
Old 09-17-2019, 07:35 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,889

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I believe you really care. Enough to generally be dishonest to combat it. Like here, pretending a 30 yr old crime with no witnesses or victim should be thoroughly investigated for purely justice concerns.
You really need to drop these allusions to honesty regarding other posters.

[/moderating]
  #169  
Old 09-17-2019, 07:59 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,455
Ok, but my mind goes there when someone tells me their plan is to investigate any and all possibility of wrongdoing by any Republican in high office along with using, twisting and changing the rules to get whatever possible political and legislative benefit they can. But I'm the cynical type.
  #170  
Old 09-17-2019, 09:53 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,749
This is a true story: I had some time to kill before an appointment this morning, so I went to get a coffee. I find a place to sit at a row of barstools. I notice as Iím sitting down that the guy a few (empty) seats away is wearing a backwards camouflage MAGA hat.

Iím drinking my coffee and sending a few emails, and about three minutes later, that guys scoots down few seats next to me. I can feel him staring at me, so I look over and say hello. He glances down, and so do I. He is masturbating in this coffee shop. I get up, tell the staff, and leave.

Why am I mentioning this? Because as far as I can tell, Republicans would support this guy if nominated to the Supreme Court, because I didnít report him to the police, I donít have any hard evidence that this happened, Iím not going to take it to a newspaper, and the only other person who knows it happened is a cashier who doesnít know me from Adam.

After all, we canít let unproven allegations get in the way of this manís career path.
  #171  
Old 09-17-2019, 09:56 AM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
If the hypothetical she (or Kavanaugh for that matter) came forward, admitted what they did, and said something like, "I was really stupid in my younger days; I recognize that what I did was terrible, and it weighs heavily on me to this day that I was once that kind of person. I am very remorseful for what I have done, but that isn't who I am anymore" I'd at least hear them out.
Fair enough.
  #172  
Old 09-17-2019, 10:32 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
This is a true story: I had some time to kill before an appointment this morning, so I went to get a coffee. I find a place to sit at a row of barstools. I notice as Iím sitting down that the guy a few (empty) seats away is wearing a backwards camouflage MAGA hat.

Iím drinking my coffee and sending a few emails, and about three minutes later, that guys scoots down few seats next to me. I can feel him staring at me, so I look over and say hello. He glances down, and so do I. He is masturbating in this coffee shop. I get up, tell the staff, and leave.

Why am I mentioning this? Because as far as I can tell, Republicans would support this guy if nominated to the Supreme Court, because I didnít report him to the police, I donít have any hard evidence that this happened, Iím not going to take it to a newspaper, and the only other person who knows it happened is a cashier who doesnít know me from Adam.

After all, we canít let unproven allegations get in the way of this manís career path.
I hope you took note of the size of coffee he was drinking. Was it a tall? Was it a grande? Was his name written on the cup? It was a busy shop, were there witnesses who will come forward to corroborate? What was the name of the waitress? Inquiring Republican minds will want to know. I mean, if you can't remember important details like that, how can we believe anything you have to say?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #173  
Old 09-17-2019, 10:48 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I hope you took note of the size of coffee he was drinking. Was it a tall? Was it a grande? Was his name written on the cup? It was a busy shop, were there witnesses who will come forward to corroborate? What was the name of the waitress? Inquiring Republican minds will want to know. I mean, if you can't remember important details like that, how can we believe anything you have to say?
Plus, I'm simply not to be trusted. I have a long history with Democratic politics, including my one and only campaign contribution ever of $100 to a Democrat congressional candidate in 2008 who I personally had known for a decade by that time!!! Thank goodness I'm not a woman, because then I'd be accused of being both partisan AND hysterical.... and I was kind of asking for it because I went into a coffee shop alone.

Last edited by Ravenman; 09-17-2019 at 10:49 AM.
  #174  
Old 09-17-2019, 10:52 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Plus, I'm simply not to be trusted. I have a long history with Democratic politics, including my one and only campaign contribution ever of $100 to a Democrat congressional candidate in 2008 who I personally had known for a decade by that time!!! Thank goodness I'm not a woman, because then I'd be accused of being both partisan AND hysterical.... and I was kind of asking for it because I went into a coffee shop alone.
Whore.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #175  
Old 09-17-2019, 11:56 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
The main person to benefit from this in the news cycle will be Biden. First it got his strange record player answer fairly forgotten about.
By white people, certainly.
  #176  
Old 09-17-2019, 12:00 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
By white people, certainly.
Is this you predicting a dip in African Americans' support for Biden?
  #177  
Old 09-17-2019, 01:02 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
By white people, certainly.
Pretty much by everyone other than a few who are already supporting someone else and want to create something by way of Twitter comments.

Remember that the strength of Bidenís support in the Black demographic is with older Black voters who donít spend so much time in the Twitterverse. They like his moderate positions and his association with the Obama years. So long as they think he is the most electable I donít think ďrecord playerĒ will spin too badly.
  #179  
Old 09-17-2019, 01:35 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Among the reporting on the reporting, this tidbit from the author's book came out:



The actual Keyser quote is "I donít have any confidence in the story." (Ford's story, that is)
I take this to mean that your position is that an investigation is not necessary because there is no there there. (?)

But if there is no there there, an investigation would make that conclusion.

Would it not be in the interest of the public, the accused, the administration and the institution of the SCOTUS, to have the investigation and finally put this to rest?

Even an inconclusive result based on all due diligence could be claimed as such, underscoring the importance of the presumption of innocence.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #180  
Old 09-17-2019, 01:47 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
It's a little more relevant, not to mention politically and judicially sound, to look at it in terms of his truthfulness under oath in his hearings. His personal conduct, for better or worse, has already been assessed politically.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 09-17-2019 at 01:48 PM.
  #181  
Old 09-17-2019, 02:03 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,075
His performance left much to be desired in terms of character and temperament, not only as a judge of the highest court in the land, but as a person you'd want to have a beer with.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #182  
Old 09-17-2019, 03:08 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,618
I'd LOVE to have a beer with him (if I drank)
  #183  
Old 09-17-2019, 03:10 PM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,192
The bias here makes it impossible to parse through all this.

If he was impeached...it would be for perjury yes? What new info has come to light that would lead to that conclusion?

As far as I know...."I saw some dudes push his penis into a womans hand" isn't relative to his testimony a year ago. and if it is, please. Enlighten me. You know...fight my ignorance and all that. Because its IMPOSSIBLE nowadays to find an unbiased news source.

Even fucking Snopes these days says "Factually incorrect but morally correct"....jackasses.

Last edited by Dale Sams; 09-17-2019 at 03:12 PM.
  #184  
Old 09-17-2019, 03:10 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I take this to mean that your position is that an investigation is not necessary because there is no there there. (?)

But if there is no there there, an investigation would make that conclusion.

Would it not be in the interest of the public, the accused, the administration and the institution of the SCOTUS, to have the investigation and finally put this to rest?

Even an inconclusive result based on all due diligence could be claimed as such, underscoring the importance of the presumption of innocence.
There already WAS an investigation, and it concluded that there was no there there. What you're asking for now is another investigation, and I have little doubt this wouldn't be a repeating cycle for Democrats:

1. Have an investigation
2. Find no corroboration
3. Declare previous investigation a sham and call for another one. Return to Step 1.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 09-17-2019 at 03:12 PM.
  #185  
Old 09-17-2019, 03:11 PM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'd LOVE to have a beer with him (if I drank)
What would your cool nickname be in his circle? The Caner? Dirty Ditka?
  #186  
Old 09-17-2019, 03:50 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
2. Find no corroboration
What is it with Kavanaugh supporters and the word 'corroboration'? We found corroboration back in October. We learned of new corroborating evidence just this week. Saying 'no corroboration' over and over again doesn't magically make the corroboration disappear.

I don't know what word you're looking for, but it isn't 'corroboration'.
  #187  
Old 09-17-2019, 03:59 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'd LOVE to have a beer with him (if I drank)
Well, he really likes beer. I guess you can be designated driver, and in charge of making sure he keeps his pants on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There already WAS an investigation, and it concluded that there was no there there. What you're asking for now is another investigation, and I have little doubt this wouldn't be a repeating cycle for Democrats:

1. Have an investigation
2. Find no corroboration
3. Declare previous investigation a sham and call for another one. Return to Step 1.
Okay. That's one "No" vote for a more thorough investigation.


You have shocked and surprised me at every turn today.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #188  
Old 09-17-2019, 04:02 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
What is it with Kavanaugh supporters and the word 'corroboration'? We found corroboration back in October. We learned of new corroborating evidence just this week. Saying 'no corroboration' over and over again doesn't magically make the corroboration disappear.

I don't know what word you're looking for, but it isn't 'corroboration'.
I remember your attempt to change the definition of "corroboration" to mean something it doesn't. It was unpersuasive then, and it remains so now. Keep clinging to it though - maybe that will be the break needed to impeach Kavanaugh!
  #189  
Old 09-17-2019, 04:09 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There already WAS an investigation, and it concluded that there was no there there.
It was ordered not to do anything that would result in any other conclusion. You do remember that, don't you?

Quote:
What you're asking for now is another investigation
No, the first one, really.
  #190  
Old 09-17-2019, 04:13 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I remember your attempt to change the definition of "corroboration" to mean something it doesn't. It was unpersuasive then, and it remains so now. Keep clinging to it though - maybe that will be the break needed to impeach Kavanaugh!
I remember putting in a great deal of effort into finding a mutually agreeable definition of corroboration, and succeeding in doing so as a necessary first step in establishing that there was, in fact, a great deal of corroboration.

As fun as that was, I don't plan on doing that again in this thread.

Your claim that I attempted to change the definition of corroboration is absurd. I put the definition out there and several Kavanaugh supporters, including a moderator named Bone I believe, agreed that the definition was fair and accurate and good a jumping off point for a discussion.
  #191  
Old 09-17-2019, 04:14 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
It was ordered not to do anything that would result in any other conclusion. You do remember that, don't you? ...
You made a similar claim earlier in this thread. Here was our exchange then:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Should I file this under the growing stack of accusations made without supporting evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
You know why not.
I see no reason to change the classification of your assertion with you repeating it here, again without any citation or supporting evidence.
  #192  
Old 09-17-2019, 04:20 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Not playing this game with you, friend.
  #193  
Old 09-17-2019, 04:34 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Not playing this game with you, friend.
I suppose if you don't have any cites, the only way to win is not to play.
  #194  
Old 09-17-2019, 04:36 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,262
Here's some Bone quotes from the previous, extremely tedious, corroboration argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
What do you think is being corroborated? Just assume everyone shares your definition of the word. A corroborates B. Substitute the variables and make a statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Fine. Stipulated. What else do you have in the metric fuck ton?
Your memories of me trying to change the definition of corroboration are inaccurate. No big deal. It happens.
  #195  
Old 09-17-2019, 04:49 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Here's some Bone quotes from the previous, extremely tedious, corroboration argument.





Your memories of me trying to change the definition of corroboration are inaccurate. No big deal. It happens.
It is to laugh. Like, it's just so poor the quality of argument you're offering. You thought unrelated items corroborated each other because they were similar allegations. What you quote is a stipulation arguendo so you could make your extremely tedious and wrongheaded, incorrect, laughably bad assertion that no one took seriously. Saying the sky is purple had more relation to reality than your assertions. So horribly bad I'm surprised you want to bring it up.

But good job linking to it, readers can decide for themselves.
  #196  
Old 09-17-2019, 04:53 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It is to laugh. Like, it's just so poor the quality of argument you're offering. You thought unrelated items corroborated each other because they were similar allegations. What you quote is a stipulation arguendo so you could make your extremely tedious and wrongheaded, incorrect, laughably bad assertion that no one took seriously. Saying the sky is purple had more relation to reality than your assertions. So horribly bad I'm surprised you want to bring it up.

But good job linking to it, readers can decide for themselves.
This is not your previous claim. You said, 'I remember your attempt to change the definition of "corroboration" to mean something it doesn't.' That didn't happen. You made a mistake.
  #197  
Old 09-17-2019, 04:56 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
It was ordered not to do anything that would result in any other conclusion. You do remember that, don't you?

No, the first one, really.
This is the part where I lose any and all sympathy and good faith with this argument.

A big part of the Kavanaugh bombshell was that some 25 witnesses did, in fact, come forward to offer testimony to the FBI, and the FBI turned them away. Anyone willing to call it an honest investigation at that point is being ridiculous. The FBI did not investigate Kavanaugh in any meaningful way. If they were trying to investigate him, they might have done things like "take statements from witnesses", of which there were literally dozens. But they didn't. It was a whitewash. And it's really really obvious that it was a whitewash. I cannot take anyone who would argue that it was a serious investigation at this point seriously.

Also, not to butt in on that stimulating conversation between Lance and Bone, but Vox also calls it "corroboration".
  #198  
Old 09-17-2019, 04:58 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Also, not to butt in on that stimulating conversation between Lance and Bone, but Vox also calls it "corroboration".
Of course they do. That very straightforwardly follows from the definition of the word.
  #199  
Old 09-17-2019, 05:25 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
This is not your previous claim. You said, 'I remember your attempt to change the definition of "corroboration" to mean something it doesn't.' That didn't happen. You made a mistake.
Cool story, bro.
  #200  
Old 09-17-2019, 06:15 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
...A big part of the Kavanaugh bombshell was that some 25 witnesses did, in fact, come forward to offer testimony to the FBI, and the FBI turned them away. Anyone willing to call it an honest investigation at that point is being ridiculous. The FBI did not investigate Kavanaugh in any meaningful way. If they were trying to investigate him, they might have done things like "take statements from witnesses", of which there were literally dozens. But they didn't. It was a whitewash. And it's really really obvious that it was a whitewash. I cannot take anyone who would argue that it was a serious investigation at this point seriously. ...
Yes, this. And it's reasonable to want to know precisely who was responsible for the obvious limitations put on that "investigation." Who gave the orders, and when? These are legitimate topics for scrutiny.

As for Democrats allegedly risking losing voters due to outrage that impeachment proceedings against Kavanaugh might be instituted: most people are aware that American voters did NOT put Kavanaugh into office, and thus they are unlikely to be upset that Congress is attempting to remove him from office. (Should that occur.)

This is how a Kavanaugh impeachment effort would fundamentally differ from a Trump impeachment effort. There is no "will of the people" element that oould inspire resentment against a Congress that tried to intervene.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017