Trump gets another SCOTUS appointment?

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:That's just your cop out escape hatch when you don't have an answer and you know it.

No it isn't. Its my effort in trying to be polite.

If you had any interest in being polite you would enter debate and discussion in good faith.

Admitting you did no such thing, which you have now done several times when declaring you don't care what any counter arguments you encounter say... is displaying anything but a concern for polite dialog. So again, spare us the BS.

You don't have any rational answer for the question put to you, and you're begging out because you know it but refuse to admit it.

That honest ...

You mean when he lied under oath?
That honesty? Or for that matter when not under oath as well.

Or the times he refused to answer basic and pertinent questions, but instead attacked the questioner?

It was basically a job interview, and anybody who's ever conducted a job interview will tell you, Kavanaugh's behaviour during it was an instant fail.

gcomeau wrote:That's just your cop out escape hatch when you don't have an answer and you know it.

PeterZ wrote:No it isn't. Its my effort in trying to be polite.

gcomeau wrote:
If you had any interest in being polite you would enter debate and discussion in good faith.

Admitting you did no such thing, which you have now done several times when declaring you don't care what any counter arguments you encounter say... is displaying anything but a concern for polite dialog. So again, spare us the BS.

You don't have any rational answer for the question put to you, and you're begging out because you know it but refuse to admit it.

Debate? No, this is an online discussion. You are as immune to persuasion as I am. I do have rational answers, just not ones you credit. Your points fail to impact me in equal measure.

As I said from the beginning, I do not attempt to persuade you. I haven't lied nor will I. Ultimately, the political discussions are about winning at the ballot box. The current reliance of the proggies to raise a mob as a tool to convince the rest of us to vote for them isn't working. Keep up those efforts that lead to having fewer representatives in office. If my conversations with you show off that proggy POV more and that makes the dems more likely to lose, then I'll continue posting. If I have to become rude to do that, I'll stop. It's that simple.

PeterZ wrote: If I have to become rude to do that, I'll stop. It's that simple.

If that was true, you would have stopped many many many posts ago.

Telling people you are discussing an issue with you don't care about anything they are telling you and won't listen to anything they present to you? Pretty much universally acknowledged to be rude.

Annachie wrote:

That honest ...

You mean when he lied under oath?
That honesty? Or for that matter when not under oath as well.

Or the times he refused to answer basic and pertinent questions, but instead attacked the questioner?

It was basically a job interview, and anybody who's ever conducted a job interview will tell you, Kavanaugh's behaviour during it was an instant fail.

No, I mean he responded to those assholes honestly and sincerely. Since he got the job, he actually succeeded in the interview. That Canucks and Kiwis are persuaded otherwise hardly matters.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote: If I have to become rude to do that, I'll stop. It's that simple.

If that was true, you would have stopped many many many posts ago.

Telling people you are discussing an issue with you don't care about anything they are telling you and won't listen to anything they present to you? Pretty much universally acknowledged to be rude.

Not at all. I read your posts. I recognize what you say and it doesn't persuade me in the least. You choose issues to discuss that are far less important to me than to you. It is no surprise that I am not persuaded. This touches on those common referents we do not share. I recognize you deal with issues from such a different place that we will not find common ground. That may be sad, but it hardly is rude to recognize.

PeterZ wrote:

Annachie wrote:You mean when he lied under oath?
That honesty? Or for that matter when not under oath as well.

Or the times he refused to answer basic and pertinent questions, but instead attacked the questioner?

It was basically a job interview, and anybody who's ever conducted a job interview will tell you, Kavanaugh's behaviour during it was an instant fail.

No, I mean he responded to those assholes honestly and sincerely.

So the tiny issue of repeated perjury from a Judge is immaterial to your assessment of "honesty"?

Since he got the job, he actually succeeded in the interview.

He could have flung his feces at the Senators and assembled onlookers and "succeeded" in that interview given the GOP resolution to confirm him regardless of qualification or scandal.

That you appear to think that is a positive is absurd... but unsurprising.

PeterZ wrote:Not at all. I read your posts. I recognize what you say and it doesn't persuade me in the least.

Considering one of those posts pointed out to you the objective fact that you were making false statements about the content of Swetnick's interview and sworn testimony, that says a lot about you.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Not at all. I read your posts. I recognize what you say and it doesn't persuade me in the least.

Considering one of those posts pointed out to you the objective fact that you were making false statements about the content of Swetnick's interview and sworn testimony, that says a lot about you.

No they did not. Swetnick was not credible, neither was Remirez. I asserted that Swetnick did not confirm Justice Kavanaugh was specifically waiting in line to rape those girls she claimed were drunk inside the rape rooms. She insinuated that they were hanging around outside and therefore must have been involved was sufficient for her to make her claims. She did not provide direct evidence that Kavanaugh did jack shit. She could not even assert that Kavanaugh spiked anything. She only claimed that he passed out red solo cups.

Not credible to anyone disinterested enough to question that account. Furthermore, she went to 10 such rape parties and was raped herself like that once. Seriously?!? 10 highschool parties where your friends are raped by boys several years younger than you and you do nothing BUT return to give them a chance to get you?!? NOT CREDIBLE! She said nothing at that time.

Swetnick was either a college kids going to an upper classmate highschool party or an upper classmate highschool kids going to a freshman party. She acted like a powerless victim in the face of all those younger and far less experienced kids? again NOT Credible. But believe as you like.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
Considering one of those posts pointed out to you the objective fact that you were making false statements about the content of Swetnick's interview and sworn testimony, that says a lot about you.

No they did not.

Yes it damn well did.

You said "Ms. Swetnick claimed in her statement that Justice Kavanaugh directly organized the gang rapes at more than 10 parties she attended."

Here is her sworn statement:

https://sc.cnbcfm.com/applications/cnbc ... tement.pdf

It contains no such claim. Your assertion was false. That simple. I pointed this out to you already. You didn't care.



You also claimed that in her interview she said "That she never saw Justice Kavanaugh near those rape lines.


Here is her interview:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... ns-n915641

I watched the entire thing. She never said that once. When asked she specifically said she DID see him in those groups of boys gathered outside the bedroom door.

Your assertion was false. That simple. I pointed this out to you already. You didn't care.


So if you are "unpersuaded" then what you are unpersuaded by is reality.


Oh.... and....:

Furthermore, she went to 10 such rape parties and was raped herself like that once. Seriously?!? 10 highschool parties where your friends are raped by boys several years younger than you and you do nothing BUT return to give them a chance to get you?!?

Further evidence you never even WATCHED the interview. She didn't realize what those lines were for until she ended up on the receiving end of one. She said that too. Which you would know if you had actually watched it.



And as for your repeated cries of "Not Credible!!!"..... that returns us to "then why didn't the GOP let the FBI investigate and CLEAR Kavanaugh so they could use that as a political WMD against the Dems for the next ten years to torpedo any allegation of misconduct they ever made?" They would have been drooling over the chance to get that opportunity if they thought that opportunity actually existed.


I know why. So do you. Deny it all you want. When only one side in a criminal complaint wants the FBI involved everyone with a shred of common sense and honesty knows what that almost certainly indicates.