Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We share a lot of common ground.

1. I agree that objectivity was not achieved, but I don't think anyone in a position of power strived for it.

2. I don't disagree with the idea that the standard in this decision needs to be much higher than "reasonable doubt". That is why I believe it should have been done behind closed doors. It is unlikely that any DA would have brought a case against Kavanaugh based on Ford's testimony, so that clearly didn't rise the standard required in a criminal trial. Yet this trial is televised and discussed ad nauseum, any reasonable person in authority would understand the need to prevent anyone from just slandering the person due to their objection to them being confirmed.

3. I also agree that the evidence is mounting that his behavior in HS and college involved many drunken parties. That doesn't necessarily mean that he misrepresented himself. He did go to Yale which does imply a serious, studious side. His calendar does support the idea that he was a serious, motivated student. He did go to a Catholic school and his portrayal as being a "choir boy" is probably true (I also sang in my church's choir). Being a "choir boy" doesn't mean he didn't go to parties. Also, one would expect in a hearing like this the focus would be on your professional career. For all we know he may have stopped drinking and therefore might not have seen this as relevant.

4. One thing that stands out to me is the focus on his HS, which tells me the opposition cannot say a word against his professional record. That is something I find ugly and disingenuous about the whole thing and agree with him.

Sorry, I guess I missed the point where he characterized himself as a goody-two-shoes "choir boy." He did say that he was not sexually active, yet also admitted that "he liked beer." They should have focused on his underage drinking.

I remember when I was in HS, we had this somewhat flamboyant guy in leisure suits from the Projects that would buy us beer. We called him "pretty boy." Except for numerous false accusations and sleazy lawyering, that is the only "crime" I have seen -- who bought them beer?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry, I guess I missed the point where he characterized himself as a goody-two-shoes "choir boy." He did say that he was not sexually active, yet also admitted that "he liked beer." They should have focused on his underage drinking.

I remember when I was in HS, we had this somewhat flamboyant guy in leisure suits from the Projects that would buy us beer. We called him "pretty boy." Except for numerous false accusations and sleazy lawyering, that is the only "crime" I have seen -- who bought them beer?

McConnell says public won't see FBI report. We'll see the result. If lying under oath is found, he's gone. If not, he's in.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

McConnell says public won't see FBI report. We'll see the result. If lying under oath is found, he's gone. If not, he's in.

A little sanctimonious preening my friend?

Have you no concern about all the Ford, Swetnick, and Ramirez lies? Numerous articles are being written to discredit the allegations by these false witnesses.

I think the best course of action is to let these 3 Rinos (Collins, Flake, Murkowski) fade into the sunset, let the Senate vote fail, renominate Kavanaugh, and let November's elections be a referendum on him.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

A little sanctimonious preening my friend?

Have you no concern about all the Ford, Swetnick, and Ramirez lies? Numerous articles are being written to discredit the allegations by these false witnesses.

I think the best course of action is to let these 3 Rinos (Collins, Flake, Murkowski) fade into the sunset, let the Senate vote fail, renominate Kavanaugh, and let November's elections be a referendum on him.

Good idea. You've been listening to Fox.