Thank you. It’s far too easy, especially in a long, fast-moving thread like this one, to just let things like that go by. I sincerely appreciate the response and acknowledgement.
His alcoholism does not make him unqualified to be on SCOTUS. His current lying about it does and makes his other statements about many other things not credible.
What “lying about it” are you referring to? He said “No. That never happened” to “was there ever a time that you drank so much that you couldn’t remember what happened the night before?” Do YOU have proof that he has? Is it more convincing than “Inconceivable!”?
ETA: I think you would do yourself a favor by reviewing this earlier post on the subject:
Come up with the list of reasons that don’t involve alcohol that belligerent drunk Kavanaugh would have forgotten getting belligerent during a dice game, and based on that list I’ll let you know if you’re unqualified to judge.
…I did my best do my best to try and find a way to disagree with you. 
But I think you made your case.
But you are wrong about everything else in this thread. 
It’s odd to see Republican senators working so hard to protect the rights of the accused. Justice Scalia, a true conservative who never saw a guilty verdict he didn’t like, must be spinning in his grave.
Not really.
His lying disqualifies him.
When faced with a tough question he says the “right” things to satisfy the questioner without regard for the truth. He’s done that in past confirmation hearings, he’s done that in the present confirmations, he did that on FOX news yesterday, and he’ll do it in front of the senate on Thursday.
The fact that you don’t drink and don’t socialize with heavy drinkers means you are somewhat uniformed when it comes to drinking. This is not an insult. It’s just the way things are.
If someone is a notably heavy drinker even for a frat guy in the 80’s, then that person has been black out drunk. Numerous times. The alternative is not remotely believable.
**HD **waffles between judging people based on the company they keep and being aghast at the idea of judging people by the company they keep. I’m going to remember his position in this thread, because I may have reason to make him eat his opinion in the next BLM thread :).
Hey, leave federal lands out of this!
While “incoherent” does not necessarily mean “blackout drunk,” “frequently incoherent,” does in fact guarantee getting blackie from time to time.
Someone else raised this earlier … but any talk anywhere that Avanatti could have been false flagged?
The fallacy of guilt by association depends upon the tenuous nature of the association. For instance, recent stories about some guy who knew some other guy with a vague connection to the Kennedy assassination. Now, that right there! That’s your “guilt by association” fallacy. It does not apply when the subject willingly joins an association.
Someone who joins the Bar Association, pays dues to the Bar Association, he is almost certainly connected to bars.
(Wait, what, lawyers? No shit? Lawyers want to hang out with lawyers? Somebody has to, I guess…)
Kavanaugh’s apparent propensity to lie about his drinking should be, for any person of principle, disqualifying.
But even the right should be worried (though lies normally don’t seem to bother them). Why? Because a man who gets this drunk over this many years (teen to early 30s at least) may well have been at the center of incidents over which he could be blackmailed.
Who knows what enterprising foreign intelligence services may have discovered by now? What if they have convincing proof—photos, video, witness testimony—that Kavanaugh, for instance, committed vehicular hit-and-run? What would Kavanaugh do to keep that hushed up?
The major GOP donors seem confident that Kavanaugh will always vote according to their dictates, elevating corporate rights above worker and consumer rights; keeping the rightfully-second-class citizens firmly second-class; getting rid of pesky regulations protecting the environment, etc. etc.
But what if the Chinese (say) can force Kavanaugh to vote in a way that helps their own interests, instead of the interests of the GOP donor class?
How can the GOP donor class be certain—given what we know of Kavanaugh’s history—that the Chinese and/or other foreign governments don’t have Kavanaugh in their back pocket(s)?
Fuck Avenatti and the horse upon in which he rode. If we can’t do this without a media whore like him, we should just take up knitting and heroin.
This one contains purported screenshots of the 4chan post that started it all.
This is substantially less evidence than Ford provided, but her you didn’t believe.
I think it’s about on par with what Ford has provided, but that’s beside the point. It’s worth noting here that I don’t necessarily believe this random 4chan poster either, or at least I’m willing to keep my powder dry until the end of Avenatti’s self-imposed 48-hour deadline.
Kavanaugh’s responses to the questions about drinking are at odds with things he’s said earlier about his drinking.
I get the impression that he’s just one of those guys that lies no matter what. Because admitting he drank heavily in college wouldn’t be a big deal. I did, and so did most of my friends. Statistically, so do something like a third of college students (depending on the decade, a bit more or less). That wouldn’t be anything close to disqualifying, at least if he’s honest about it.