Can Democrats actually stop the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh?

Politics & Elections
5321

His specific quote (at least one of them)was (source):

He didn’t say that “(some unspecified) seniors” could drink. He said, “the seniors were legal,” which is, of course, very different from “some seniors were legal” (which was, of course, what was actually the case, and was, IMO, meant to be as deceptive as it could be, without him flat-out lying and stating that he was of legal drinking age during his senior year.

I’m six weeks younger than Kavanaugh; like him, I graduated from high school in 1983. At that time, the legal drinking age in Wisconsin was 18 (it didn’t go up to 19 until 1984, and then to 21 in 1986). At the start of our senior year, probably only a few of my classmates were 18 – anyone who was that old would have, in fact, almost undoubtedly been in the previous class, unless they had been held back for some reason (for example, one of my classmates, who was also in my grade school class, was a year behind where he should have been, due to his parents deciding he wasn’t ready for kindergarten when he was five). By the end of our senior year, most of us had had our 18th birthdays.

The article then notes:

Unless the rules for minimum age / birthday for entering kindergarten or 1st grade were different in Maryland than they were in Wisconsin, I’m going to make an educated guess that relatively few members of Kavanaugh’s class were, in fact, legal drinkers during their senior year. If they’d already been age 18 by July 1, 1982, it seems to me that they would likely have been in the class of 1982, not Kavanaugh’s class of 1983.

Thus, by the time that he started his senior year of high school, in August or September of 1982, the drinking age was not, in fact, 18; it was 21.

5322

Wow — so when I listened (radio) last Thursday to Kavanaugh’s opening delivery to the Senate Judiciary Committee, I was very impressed. His points were strong. Wow. I did not have time to hear the committee’s questioning.

Tonight, back from out of town, I watched the recorded questioning. I recorded both CNN and Fox. I watched only the questioning. I FF’d thru the commentaries.

Wow, he was terrible. I think Trump will pull his endorsement of Kavenaugh.

5323

That was great!

5324

OMG!! Thank you for sharing that. I’m in tears from laughing so hard. :smiley:

5325

This is such bullshit. Your “evidence” that he had blackouts is “everyone who drinks heavily has blackouts” which is, itself, bullshit. Congrats, you’re piling bullshit on top of bullshit.

5326

My evidence that he had blackouts is that his drinking buddies that he knew at the time unanimously agree that he had blackouts.

5327

I highly doubt you could get someone for purjury on their interpretation of slang, code words or inside jokes. I think you’d need evidence they contradicted theirself, not urban dictionary or friends.

5328

Unanimously? Cite?

5329

If you’d like to provide a character witness who says “Brett couldn’t possibly have been blackout drunk because he was too busy lifting weights and reading the Bible every night”, then please do.

He certainly hasn’t bothered to do so yet.

5330

You’re the one that made the “unanimously” claim, apparently without a source. Given that, I don’t feel the need to provide anything.

5331

Neither does Kavanaugh, apparently.

5333

Thanks for using only two F’s there. :stuck_out_tongue:

5334

Skipped past this a few pages back:

Dude, the only people who can prove anything are mathematicians and logicians. Everybody else (including mathematicians and logicians outside their professional context) are dealing with varying degrees of preponderance of the evidence.

And that’s what an FBI investigation might turn up: more evidence. You’re right, they can’t prove a damned thing, but they don’t need a letter from God to pile up evidence that makes it easier for us mere mortals to reach a conclusion one way or the other.

It isn’t a matter of ‘we either prove something, or we know nothing.’ You have a gigantic excluded middle in your bullshit. You can state that excluded middle “over and over and over and fucking over again,” but it’s still a massive excluded middle.

5335

You should provide a cite. You do your argument no service by not providing it, you just make it clear that either it is not true or it will likely not hold up to the standard of “unanimous”.

Given that we already know that there are “vouchers” published by people who support Kavanaugh, that knew him when he was young, it will be trivial easy to demonstrate that there is no unanimous consensus.

You’re better off to bite the bullet and post links to the people who have detailed their accounts of seeing him wasted, and take the hit for hyperbole, than to not post links to the testimony.

Ultimately, the fact that people who did support him have flipped, when it came to question of heavy drinking, is good evidence. But that is a limited selection of all people who knew him.

And, likely, Hurricane has seen these reports and is aware that it’s silly to think that Kavanaugh wasn’t a hard drinker, but chooses to play politics and attack your word choice, to keep the evidence at bay. You’re just helping him.

5336

Unlike Kavanaugh’s friend who apparently uses 7 Fs.

5337

I too am wondering how you can state this without a cite.

5338

Is this now blocked? Oh no!

Glad I watched it, it really was good! Thanks again, Smapti!

5339

No, the evidence he had blackouts is that he has emails apologizing for his aggressive blackouts. Also, his public comments bragging about his blackouts. As well as the testimony of the people who knew him to be a uncontrollable drunk.

5340

While NBC has bent sufficiently to put SNL clips on YouTube, they are still extremely protective of their IP. Here’s the official link to the sketch.

5341

He didn’t use the word “blackout”, and you’re speculating that he was drunk during the dice game.

Cite? I don’t know what you’re referring to here.

Did those people claim to know that he “blacked out”?