Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

RobertKK

oscarBravo wrote: »

Come on, it's a simple question. Given the context - the question "have you boofed yet?" written in a high school yearbook - do you think a claim that it refers to flatulence is credible?

If you're going to give another "I don't know" answer, spare us both the trouble. There's nothing more tiresome than someone trying to claim that they don't know how to think in order to avoid answering a question that might show them in a bad light. At least ELM327 was honest in his public support for someone perjuring themselves in order to get a job.

So you just assume things to suit your position, because you actually know? Why should I have to lie and pretend I know what it means when I don't so you can simply win some point scoring exercise about a word I never heard of before this?
I am not going to lie because that would not be honest. You are making out it would be honest if I lie and pretend I know.

everlast75

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not going to lie because that would not be honest

You see the moral problem with you lying, but not when a supreme court judge does it.

Gotcha.

RobertKK

everlast75 wrote: »

You see the problem with lying, but not when a supreme court judge does it.

Gotcha.

No you haven't, but I don't mind if it makes you feel you won some point.

everlast75

For anyone that is interested, there's a good discussion on the Slate's Trumpcast, with Mr. Wittes. A fair analysis of Kavanaugh from someone who is on the record liking and respecting him

aloyisious

RobertKK wrote: »

No you haven't, but I don't mind if it makes you feel you won some point.

If it's any help to your getting some understanding on what boofing is and the reason it arose was that it was written by Judge Kavanaugh on one of his calendars introduced as evidence at his hearing.

The best estimate is that it referred to drinking alcohol and smoking weed but the judge said it referred to farting. That is why his reply was treated with some disbelief.

BTW it's the first time I heard of it so I had to google on it's meaning. Boofing also has another meaning in the urban dictionary way beyond anything the judge would be likely to admit to.

Captain Obvious

everlast75 wrote: »

You see the moral problem with you lying, but not when a supreme court judge does it.

Gotcha.

It's like being a football fan and not caring if your team gets away with a foul or a dive. When the opponent does it it's awful but when your team does it it's just how the game is played.

RobertKK

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It's like being a football fan and not caring if your team gets away with a foul or a dive. When the opponent does it it's awful but when your team does it it's just how the game is played.

Which is what I posted earlier about the Democrats fully supporting Hillary for the Presidency despite the allegations made by women against her husband, there was no #IBelieveHer, but they applied double standards to Kavanaugh.

TomOnBoard

RobertKK wrote: »

Which is what I posted earlier about the Democrats fully supporting Hillary for the Presidency despite the allegations made by women against her husband, there was no #IBelieveHer, but they applied double standards to Kavanaugh.

And in the exact same vein, Republicans supporting Trump for the Presidency despite the allegations made by women against him....

Hillary is not her husband... She was NOT the target of the allegations; meanwhile Trump was. Later, Kav was...

Your attempt at equating both sets of circumstances simply doesn't fly. It is a false comparison.

Captain Obvious

RobertKK wrote: »

Which is what I posted earlier about the Democrats fully supporting Hillary for the Presidency despite the allegations made by women against her husband, there was no #IBelieveHer, but they applied double standards to Kavanaugh.

You're suggesting Hillary should have been held responsible for the actions of her husband?

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

So you just assume things to suit your position, because you actually know?

I don't know what that means.

Why should I have to lie and pretend I know what it means when I don't so you can simply win some point scoring exercise about a word I never heard of before this?

That's what I meant about pretending to be stupid.

I didn't ask you whether you knew what it meant. I asked whether you thought the claim that it referred to flatulence was credible, given the context.

Over to you to find another feeble excuse to avoid justifying your support for a perjurer.

BabyCheeses

RobertKK wrote: »

Which is what I posted earlier about the Democrats fully supporting Hillary for the Presidency despite the allegations made by women against her husband, there was no #IBelieveHer, but they applied double standards to Kavanaugh.

Women aren't property of their husbands anymore. They are separate people.

RobertKK

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You're suggesting Hillary should have been held responsible for the actions of her husband?

Hillary said all women should be believed, but she didn't when it was too close to home. Only believe if you don't like the person...

In that video she lies.

RobertKK

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Women aren't property of their husbands anymore. They are separate people.

So did she believe the women who made allegations against her philandering husband?
If she did then she didn't see it serious enough to affect her marriage, or if she didn't then she speaks out of both sides of her mouth on the issue.

drkpower

oscarBravo wrote: »

In fact, if all the Trump/Kavanaugh supporters would be so kind as to admit that they're perfectly content with perjury - as long as it's their guy who's doing it - that would be refreshing.

Im neither a trump nor Kavanaugh supporter.

And I think he probably lied (about the meaning of various terms on his yearbook, and the extent of his drinking).

But here’s the thing: there isn’t any evidence of that perjury, other than the word of various school and college mates from 30 something years ago. If that is the standard of evidence you are prepared to accept, then Blasey Ford also perjured herself (given the word of her former long term boyfriend).

volchitsa

drkpower wrote: »

Im neither a trump nor Kavanaugh supporter.

And I think he probably lied (about the meaning of various terms on his yearbook, and the extent of his drinking).

But here’s the thing: there isn’t any evidence of that perjury, other than the word of various school and college mates from 30 something years ago. If that is the standard of evidence you are prepared to accept, then Blasey Ford also perjured herself (given the word of her former long term boyfriend).

So Blasey Ford is equally unsuited for a lifetime appointment as SC judge then.

Doesn't make Kavanaugh any better though.

drkpower

volchitsa wrote: »

So Blasey Ford is equally unsuited for a lifetime appointment as SC judge then.

Doesn't make Kavanaugh any better though.

That logic works if you are prepared to simply accept the word of a variety of people who have made interventions in the middle of one of the biggest partisan political ****sorms in living memory.

I’m not. And anyone who is, is going down a very dangerous road.

TomOnBoard

drkpower wrote: »

That logic works if you are prepared to simply accept the word of a variety of people who have made interventions in the middle of one of the biggest partisan political ****sorms in living memory.

I’m not. And anyone who is, is going down a very dangerous road.

Your logic ignores that the "variety of people", all knowing Kav, made their interventions only after Dr Ford testified at the hearing, Kav responded and then went on Fox with a self-serving interview. Their intervention was entirely credible (apart possibly from Avenatti's client who was largely discounted anyway) and logical.

A properly managed FBI investigation, as initially requested by numerous bodies such as the ABA and the Jesuits and envisaged after Flake's intervention would have sussed out the credibility or otherwise of the "variety of people" in jig time. However, Kav's proposers and campaign organisers shut that down, so that a sham ensued. Shame on them!

BabyCheeses

RobertKK wrote: »

So did she believe the women who made allegations against her philandering husband?
If she did then she didn't see it serious enough to affect her marriage, or if she didn't then she speaks out of both sides of her mouth on the issue.

Don't know. Haven't paid attention to her for the past 2 years.


Is talking out of both sides of her mouth a bad thing? Doesn't usually bother you.

Leroy42

RobertKK wrote: »

So did she believe the women who made allegations against her philandering husband?
If she did then she didn't see it serious enough to affect her marriage, or if she didn't then she speaks out of both sides of her mouth on the issue.

She probably did believe that her husband had affairs, but also believed in the sacriment of marriage and this worked to try to offer a stable home for her child, and of course she probably felt that the American public would blame her should she leave him.

Of course, she was completely correct in that assumption, as you post goes to show.

But wait? Where is your admonishment of Melania? And why is Ivanka still working in the admin now she is knows what her dad has been up to?

So which is it. Should all affairs lead directly to divorce, is that your position?

drkpower

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Your logic ignores that the "variety of people", all knowing Kav, made their interventions only after Dr Ford testified at the hearing, Kav responded and then went on Fox with a self-serving interview. Their intervention was entirely credible (apart possibly from Avenatti's client who was largely discounted anyway) and logical.

A properly managed FBI investigation, as initially requested by numerous bodies such as the ABA and the Jesuits and envisaged after Flake's intervention would have sussed out the credibility or otherwise of the "variety of people" in jig time. However, Kav's proposers and campaign organisers shut that down, so that a sham ensued. Shame on them!

A credible intervention is neither here nor there. And given the partisan political climate now, any and all interventions right now are particularly in need of supportive actual evidence.

However, I do agree with you that a more detailed fbi investigation should have been conducted. The reasons why one hasn’t been are clearly political, which is sadly unsurprising given that this is a political process. While the majority of the blame goes to the Reps for that, the Dems have to,take a huge slice of the blame too. They knew exactly what they were doing re delaying notifying the Ford allegations to the committee on a confiðential,basis.

RobertKK

Leroy42 wrote: »

She probably did believe that her husband had affairs, but also believed in the sacriment of marriage and this worked to try to offer a stable home for her child, and of course she probably felt that the American public would blame her should she leave him.

Of course, she was completely correct in that assumption, as you post goes to show.

But wait? Where is your admonishment of Melania? And why is Ivanka still working in the admin now she is knows what her dad has been up to?

So which is it. Should all affairs lead directly to divorce, is that your position?

Women claimed Bill had raped them, it was more than just affairs.
Some of the women said Hillary tried to silence them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/us/politics/bill-clinton-sexual-misconduct-debate.html

Ms. Willey, Ms. Broaddrick and Ms. Jones, however, described unwilling encounters. Ms. Jones asserted that Mr. Clinton, while he was governor of Arkansas and she was a state employee, summoned her to a hotel room, dropped his pants and requested oral sex. Ms. Willey, a former White House volunteer, accused him of kissing and groping her in the Oval Office. Ms. Broaddrick, an Arkansas nursing home owner, alleged that Mr. Clinton forced her to have sex during a meeting on the campaign trail in 1978.

Mr. Clinton’s lawyers have disputed all three charges, although he eventually paid $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit by Ms. Jones without admitting wrongdoing, citing the political costs of continuing to fight it.

TomOnBoard

RobertKK wrote: »

Women claimed Bill had raped them, it was more than just affairs.
Some of the women said Hillary tried to silence them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/us/politics/bill-clinton-sexual-misconduct-debate.html

Aw, C'mon.... This whataboutery is simply getting to be waaaay too much!

The issue at hand is Kavanaugh's accession to the USSC. Like, how far are we going to go back with this whataboutery?? So what about Jefferson bringing his slaves into the White House.... Ridiculous deflection!

hill16bhoy

Out of interest, I wonder how many people posting here who supported Kavanaugh's confirmation also had no problem with Roy Moore being the Republican senate candidate in Alabama last year?

Leroy42

RobertKK wrote: »

Women claimed Bill had raped them, it was more than just affairs.
Some of the women said Hillary tried to silence them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/us/politics/bill-clinton-sexual-misconduct-debate.html

So a few women made some allegations. Did they do it at the time? Did they have sufficient evidence?

I mean that is the level you want to operate at isn't it? Maybe HC listening to the and decided that although she found them credible there simply wasn't enough to destroy poor Bill's life!

StringerBell

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do find it hard to understand why Trump supporters are willing to defend Kavanaugh. He is not the only person that could have been nominated, and they, any more than any of us, have no idea of the man or indeed what he is really like.

The only thing I can work out is that winning is far more important that bring right or ones principles. Even some of the responses of here, such as Bill Clinton, the DNC etc, doesn't align with the idea of MAGA.

How is reverting to the very things that one detests make anything better.

Honestly though, at this point why?

Its always one of or a combination of

A. All the winning
B. Sticking it to the "libtards"
C. Leader says good so must be good.

There is no further thought necessary. There is nothing to understand beyond that.

Nermal

In a move that will surprise absolutely no one...

https://abc7news.com/politics/ford-wont-pursue-sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-kavanaugh-further/4427136/?sf199507183=1

Eric Cartman

Nermal wrote: »

In a move that will surprise absolutely no one...

https://abc7news.com/politics/ford-wont-pursue-sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-kavanaugh-further/4427136/?sf199507183=1

As suspected, the democrats tried, it failed, they're not going to give her more money, she'll just be cut loose now and they'll move on to the next way to try rumble Donald trump again.

StringerBell

Well, you are correct in that anyway.

Why would it surprise anyone?

Edit: Oh Christ, I just got it. You think that proves something don't you?

I do truly worry at times.

Professor Moriarty

Eric Cartman wrote: »

As suspected, the democrats tried, it failed, they're not going to give her more money, she'll just be cut loose now and they'll move on to the next way to try rumble Donald trump again.

What money did the Dems give her?

batgoat

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What money did the Dems give her?

Her lawyers were pro buono, stated it during the testimony. Also stated she received no money from dems if I recall correctly.