Should Kavanaugh by required to take polygraph test during the up coming FBI investigation?
Poll
 | 4 votes (33.33%) | ||
| | 9 votes (75%) |
12 members have voted
Quote: SteverinosJohn Paul Stevens is a life-long republican
LOL...
Quote: SteverinosJohn Paul Stevens is a lifelong republican who served on the Supreme Court for 35 years. I'll take his word for it.
In Trump land though, he'll be written off. I can hear you guys now...."I like retired Supreme Court Justices that aren't 98. That I can tell you. Many people are saying it."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/supreme-court-justice-john-paul-stevens-kavanaugh/
One big "MEH." Liberals throwing all they can against the wall, hoping something will stick. Truly pathetic. And I do not care if Stevens is a RINO or not. "Temperment" is the latest buzzword. All the lamesteram media will harp on it. What a sad joke.
What’s the process for impeaching a SCOTUS judge? Has it ever happened?
Quote: gamerfreakWhat’s the process for impeaching a SCOTUS judge? Has it ever happened?
Same as the president. Majority of the house to impeach. 2/3 of senate to remove.
I believe it has only happened once. But just like presidents none have ever been removed. It is extraordinarily difficult to meet the 2/3 threshold.
Quote: gamerfreakI’m sure he will get confirmed tomorrow, but if there’s any truth to the accusations (and I believe there is),
Based on what, your hopes and what a
Ouija Board told you? At this point, that's
all you have.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkSame as the president. Majority of the house to impeach. 2/3 of senate to remove.
I believe it has only happened once. But just like presidents none have ever been removed. It is extraordinarily difficult to meet the 2/3 threshold.
That's partly because Justices resign prior to impeachment. The sitting Justice LBJ nominated to head the court ended up resigning when the investigation turned up a couple of questionable dealings. I honestly don't know the details.
Quote: EvenBobBased on what, your hopes and what a
Ouija Board told you? At this point, that's
all you have.
I certainly don’t hope that anyone was sexually assaulted.
Suggesting that borders on a personal insult.
Quote: billryanThat's partly because Justices resign prior to impeachment.
I could be wrong, but the case of Abe Fortas may be the one in history who resigned due to scandal. Not sure if that makes a precedent. That aside, I really dont see Kavanaugh resigning, mainly because he knows that it would take roughly 16 republican senators to remove him.
Quote: RonCWhy do you keep bringing her up?
I rarely bring her up. And when I do, it’s usually to mock the obsession certain righties still have with her.
But they’re coming around.... Now even EB says she won’t be the nominee in 2020.
Quote: gamerfreakI certainly don’t hope that anyone was sexually assaulted.
Suggesting that borders on a personal insult.
So you don't hope it's true, but
believe it is. Based on what,
flawed testimony and no witnesses?
Ford is afraid to fly, then she isn't.
She names 4 witnesses who have
no idea what she's talking about.
Her ex boyfriend says he saw her
coaching a woman on how to beat
a lie detector, so she lied under oath.
Why would anybody believe anything
she says.
Quote: ams288But they’re coming around.... Now even EB says she won’t be the nominee in 2020.
It'll be Her or Anenatti, the debates should
be entertaining.
Quote: gamerfreakI’m sure he will get confirmed tomorrow, but if there’s any truth to the accusations (and I believe there is), they aren’t going to go away after the confirmation.
What’s the process for impeaching a SCOTUS judge? Has it ever happened?
It will be forgotten. Ford comes off as mentally ill. She has no credibility. The liberals will find the next Trump-will-destroy-the-world thing to have a hissy fit over. And life will go on.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt will be forgotten.
I am 50/50 on this. The progressive wing of the democrats will want to push for impeachment when they retake the house. However, they will have their hands full trying to impeach Trump. Neither Trump or Kavanaugh stand a snowballs chance in hell in being removed though.
a joke. When I started HS 55 years ago,
groping a girl thru her clothes was called
a third date. It was called getting to 2nd
and maybe 3rd base.
It was expected, if a girl went out with you for
a 3rd date, they expected to get groped.
It was part of the fun, they pretended
resistance because they didn't want to
seem 'easy'.
20 years later, 1983, apparently it had become
a felony. I don't believe it happened with
Kavanaugh, but it sure did with me. And
every other guy I knew. The girls I was with
loved it as much as I did, panting and breathing
hard, all the while saying 'stop, we shouldn't
be doing this'.
The gist of the op-ed is that he’s not the cry baby little bitch he was at last Thursday’s hearing and he can be an impartial judge (lol).
That is the only blip I've seen of the whole charade. It made me think she should have had a big cloth doll with her, so she could point to where the bad man touched her.Quote: EvenBobAnd that thing she did with her
voice, the teen Valley Girl impression. What
55 year old educated woman talks like that.
Quote: petroglyphThat is the only blip I've seen of the whole charade. It made me think she should have had a big cloth doll with her, so she could point to where the bad man touched her.
LOLOL! You made me guffaw out loud,
that's exactly what she seemed like. It
was a skit SNL would do.
Quote: KeyserI know this isn't a politically correct statement, but a man's legal rights are just as important as a woman's.
Get real, you must think we're still
in the early 90's. Ever since Clinton,
a mans rights have been dwindling
away. If you're a white guy, you
effectively have no rights anymore.
she posted a video mocking baby talk 'vocal
fry' Valley Girl type of speaking. No educated
55 year old women talk like this, like they're 14
and in 9th grade.
Quote: EvenBobThis Star Wars voice actor got lambasted when
she posted a video mocking baby talk 'vocal
fry' Valley Girl type of speaking. No educated
55 year old women talk like this, like they're 14
and in 9th grade.
Ha! That's her! Tooooo funny!!!
When Ford did that looking kind of down and away while talking like a child, did anyone honestly think that she was being sincere and truthful!
I know some members on here say that they believed her, but they really only say that because they're very partisan, biased and or posturing. Her performance was horrible!
Quote: Keyser
Ha! That's her! Tooooo funny!!!
When Ford did that looking kind of down and away while talking like a child, did anyone honestly think that she was being sincere and truthful!
I know some members on here say that they believed her, but they really only say that because they're very partisan, biased and or posturing. Her performance was horrible!
I think it's kind of possible to believe both things. She could be telling the truth as she remembers it, or perhaps it is exactly as it happened, but she's also, "Overselling," at the same time. If anything that Kavanaugh said was honest, it was certainly also an oversell at that testimony.
Quote: KeyserThe little girl talk was like a bad episode of Saturday Night Live or Scary Movie 10! Yes, well educated people regularly talk and act like she does.
They planned this for months. She was
heavily coached and she's a phych
teacher, she knows the more vulnerable
you sound, the more sympathy you'll
get. I believed none of it, it was a
stage play, and not a good one.
She didn't know about the offer to
come to her home by the Senate.
Her lawyer kept her purposely
and willingly isolated from the media
so as not to spook her and make her
nervous. She didn't watch any of the
coverage on cable news.
I think the whole thing is a lie. very
carefully crafted to derail Kavanaugh.
With the James Baker testimony to
save his ass, some of the details are
coming out on the carefully crafted
coup the DoJ and FBI hatched to
exonerate Hillary and sink Trump.
It's not who will go to prison on the
Left, it's how many. They will soon be
cutting deals and ratting on each other,
and the deep stench of the Obama
admin will be revealed.
Quote: KeyserFord didn't come across as being even remotely believable! Not even close. Many people are too eager to be fashionably politically correct, so they'll pretend to believe her, but deep down know she's a fraud. The little girl talk was like a bad episode of Saturday Night Live or Scary Movie 10! Yes, well educated people regularly talk and act like she does.
Supposing for a second that I agreed with you, which I don't completely*, even then I still wasn't in every bedroom in the State of Maryland during the entire Summer of 1982 to know that no such event occurred. I'm starting to wonder if I am one of the only Moderates left, which is odd, because I'd have been called a left-wing nut job fifteen years ago and my views on things really haven't changed.
Anyway, I still maintain that her general mannerisms were part of the sell, but you can believe that you're telling the truth and still be trying to sell something. In fact, people who are telling the truth are just as likely to try to sell you on what they are saying as people who are not.
I was actually reading a politically neutral (had nothing to do with this) article a while back that I found interesting. It basically said that people are terrible at identifying when a person is lying. There was some kind of testing done, I forget the particulars, but in guessing truth or lie, people were only correct 54% of the time.
*I think that many of the people who say they believe her completely actually believe her, but in certain cases it is due to political biases, and in other cases, they do in fact believe her...but the fervency with which they hold that position is due to political bias.
Quote: Mission146
*I think that many of the people who say they believe her completely actually believe her, but in certain cases it is due to political biases, and in other cases, they do in fact believe her...but the fervency with which they hold that position is due to political bias.
A number of people want to be viewed as being progressive, or cool, so they'll try and go along with what a popular actress or movement is saying rather than using common sense. If there was a way to secretly poll people, at least 80% of the people would tell you she was weird and a bad actress.
Our civil rights shouldn't be put on hold because of #meetoo or any other fad!
Quote: Mission146It basically said that people are terrible at identifying when a person is lying...but in guessing truth or lie, people were only correct 54% of the time.
.
Good grief, how is getting it right roughly
half the time 'terrible'. I'm surprised it's
that high. People are generally gullible
and believe what you tell them because
they're too lazy to figure out if you're
lying.
Con men depend on that, they know people
want to believe you and generally do. The
reason the testing was so high was they
knew it was a test, so they paid more attention.
I bet if it was just everyday life those same
people believe 95% of what they hear.
Quote: KeyserFord didn't come across as being even remotely believable!
Take a short test on spotting lies or truth. See how good you are. I don't care about your score since there is no way to verify whether you or anyone else is telling the truth on their score.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/03/21/science/can-you-spot-the-liar.html
Quote: EvenBobGood grief, how is getting it right roughly
half the time 'terrible'. I'm surprised it's
that high. People are generally gullible
and believe what you tell them because
they're too lazy to figure out if you're
lying.
Con men depend on that, they know people
want to believe you and generally do. The
reason the testing was so high was they
knew it was a test, so they paid more attention.
I bet if it was just everyday life those same
people believe 95% of what they hear.
It wasn’t like that. Again, I forget all the particulars, but I do know they were told one person was lying while the other was telling the truth and they had to guess who was who.
Quote: rxwinethere is no way to verify whether you or anyone else is telling the truth on their score.
Sure there is, this one is easy. She distinctly
remembers having only one beer, to firmly
establish she was NOT drunk. She remembers
vividly every nuance of the 'attack', she even
remembers the names of the people at the
party. Dang it though, the time, date, location,
even the year, completely escapes her. If she
could remember, the FBI would actually have
something to investigate. Ford and the
attorney can't have that,
They won't turn over the letter she sent old
lady Feinstein, won't release the notes her
therapist took, won't release the written
results of the polygraph. The lady prosecutor
said there were about 14 things wrong with
her testimony, it stunk to high heaven.
Ford's a liar liar pants on fire. She was afraid
of flying to point she never flies. Liar liar.
She's claustrophobic. Liar liar. She was attacked
by Kavanaugh 36 years ago. Liar liar liar.
If you can't see that, you are in denial.
Quote: EvenBob
If you can't see that, you are in denial.
I remember more specific details of parties, like the high school graduation party I went to, because it's a specific event, but also went to several parties where on Friday or Saturday, i'd be riding with friends and we literally went to some parties because a friend would be yelling at other kids riding around if they knew where any parties were going on. So, reality is I didn't exactly always know whose house it was we ended up at or could find it again unless I was driving, In s, florida, we sometimes ended up in a cul-de-sac with no houses around at all because there were lots of roads in the area then with no housing yet.
You just haven't had enough life experiences EB,
Quote: RSIt's not even that polygraphs "can be beaten" or "may not always work"....it's that polygraphs are simply absolutely terrible. It's easy to pass if you're relaxed and chill, even if you're actually lying/guilty as well as easy to fail even if you're telling the truth/innocent. I thought this was common knowledge. It's like one step above throwing "witches" into water to see if they drown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Augustus_Larson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyDMoGjKvNk
Oh snap, I called it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH-u23HvwBU
Quote: EvenBob
Ford's a liar liar pants on fire. She was afraid
of flying to point she never flies. Liar liar.
She's claustrophobic. Liar liar. She was attacked
by Kavanaugh 36 years ago. Liar liar liar.
If you can't see that, you are in denial.
She is also a ***** hat wearer. An extreme never-Trumper. She had an agenda. Her students rated her very low. She really does not have the temperament to even be a professor.
Quote: rxwineTake a short test on spotting lies or truth. See how good you are. I don't care about your score since there is no way to verify whether you or anyone else is telling the truth on their score.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/03/21/science/can-you-spot-the-liar.html
8/10 and i think only one did a good job at lying, but if i wasn't aware beforehand that some are lying the average score will probably be close to 50/50 (assuming 50% are lying).
With people who really know what they're doing and have prepared thoroughly it will be hard though. Then again telling a short story in several sentences is one thing and believably telling a long winded, detailed lie involving several other real people while cross examined is a whole other story.
The dems want the 5/4 ruling in favor of Citizens United reversed.
The ruling allows unlimited funds from known and non-disclosed sources, including foreign sources, to flow into groups that can use it to influence an election, or a politicians vote on any issue they support.
The Dems view it as a threat to democracy. The Republicans view it as protection for individuals wanting to anonymously support a candidate or issue, without the fear of losing their job.
Quote: TankoSen. Claire McCaskill said she would vote against Kavanaugh because of ‘The Dark Money’.
The dems want the 5/4 ruling in favor of Citizens United reversed.
The ruling allows unlimited funds from known and non-disclosed sources, including foreign sources, to flow into groups that can use it to influence an election, or a politicians vote on any issue they support.
Freedom of speech is guaranteed, but I know of no reason why there is any guarantee of anonymity except in the actual casting of a vote,
She may veer off course and talk about that later, but she is at least stating her real case for not supporting him at this point.
Should that mean that, if Kavanaugh fails to be approved, she will approve the next appointee who has a similar judicial record so long as there is nothing else that comes up as in this case?
Quote: 777I cannot read what is on TigerWu's mind nor do I know his/her intent. But I certainly don't see how it can interpreted as implying someone is stupid, imbecile or childlike. It is artful way to avoid in-your-face or direct confrontation...
My comment was intended as a thinly veiled insult. Allow me to explain:
I made some comments indicating I believed Kavanaugh acted completely inappropriately. Fleaswatter asked what I would do if I were in Kavanaugh’s shoes:
Quote: FleaswatterGoing with your assumptions, how would YOU react in the exact same circumstances?
A completely fair and honest question, that I of course initially took no offense to, so I answered in what I thought was a reasonable and succinct manner:
Quote: TigerWuIf I was a federal judge being nominated for a Supreme Court position and testifying before a Senate subcommittee, I would hope that by the time I got to that point in my life I would have the decorum to remain professional and even-keeled throughout the entire ordeal.
Fleaswatter, for whatever reason, apparently did not care for this answer, and responded with what I believe was uncalled-for rudeness and condescension:
Quote: FleaswatterIf If If, that is not answering my question.
I really would like to know how YOU would react. Put yourself in Kavanaugh's shoes. Is that so hard?
Being slightly confused, not only at his response but also at the apparent vitriol contained therein, I at first just assumed that maybe Fleaswatter glossed over my answer, and missed my specific explanation, so I quoted myself in my response to reiterate my point and express my frustration:
Quote: TigerWuDid you miss the part where I answered your question?
"....I would have the decorum to remain professional and even-keeled throughout the entire ordeal."
How much more straightforward can I get?
Fleaswatter, again unsatisfied with my answer, decided he wanted to split hairs and play the semantics card:
Quote: FleaswatterSaying that you "HOPE" does not answer how you, today, would respond/react.
At this point I suspected that, at best, Fleaswatter had simply asked a vague question and I misunderstood what he was getting at, and, at worst, he was shifting the goalposts and being purely argumentative for no good reason. In either case, that does not explain or forgive his rudeness in the previous post. Regardless, I made one last attempt at civility and provided clarification for my responses, indicating what I would do if I were a) Brett Kavanaugh, and b) TigerWu. I figured that would cover all the bases and clear up any miscommunications once and for all so everyone could be on their way.
Quote: TigerWuOkay, so you're giving me two contradictory scenarios, one of which is completely irrelevant to the situation at hand.
…….
Kavanaugh acted unprofessionally, period. It doesn't matter what I would do, right now. It matters what Kavanaugh would do. And in my opinion, he failed that test.
Fleaswatter’s response?
Quote: FleaswatterAll I can say is, YAWN
At this point it became perfectly clear to me, as I had somewhat suspected earlier, that, with this completely dismissive and insulting response, and despite having respectfully and repeatedly answering his question, Fleaswatter had absolutely no intention of having a rational and adult discussion about the situation at hand and was obviously trolling in violation of Rule 12 of the forum:
Quote:12. No bullying/trolling: Members are expected to act like ladies and gentlemen. Members may not be overly divisive or abusive to another member. …..
Subsequently, after I had reached this conclusion, I saw no reason to treat Fleaswatter with any more respect than he deserved, crafted my insult to reflect the immaturity he showed towards me and the forum in general, and blocked any further responses from him.
So yes, 777, I insulted Fleaswatter and I was rightly suspended and I have no objection to that, because I, too, violated forum rules in standing up to his instigations.
(NOTE: I have trimmed quotes from both myself and Fleaswatter as I did not want this explanatory post to be overly long. I believe I have fairly represented the gist of the entire conversation as I perceived it. Complete posts may be read on pages 16-17 of this thread.)
Later folks… have a nice weekend.
Murkowski is a "no" on Kavanaugh.
My guess Kavanaugh's SCOTUS fate depends on Machin and Collins final confirmation votes on Saturday.
For Kavanaugh to become a SCOTUS justice, he needs only one "yes" vote from either Machin or Collins.
Machin or Collins -- who will vote first on Saturday?
If Collins votes first and her vote is a "no", then Machin would vote "no", and if Collins' vote is a "yes", then Kavanaugh certainly wins the nomination and Machin's vote's is meaningless. Machin can then use his meaningless vote to cast a "yes" vote to gain point with his constituent.
Quote: 777https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-vote-confirmed.html
Murkowski is a "no" on Kavanaugh.
My guess Kavanaugh's SCOTUS fate depends on Machin and Collins final confirmation votes on Saturday.
For Kavanaugh to become a SCOTUS justice, he needs only one "yes" vote from either Machin or Collins.
Machin or Collins -- who will vote first on Saturday?
If Collins votes first and her vote is a "no", then Machin would vote "no", and if Collins' vote is a "yes", then Kavanaugh certainly wins the nomination and Machin's vote's is meaningless. Machin can then use his meaningless vote to cast a "yes" vote to gain point with his constituent.
This is why Murkowski was kicked to the curb in the primary several years back.
Quote: AZDuffmanThis is why Murkowski was kicked to the curb in the primary several years back.
I'm an Alaskan. I have written Don Young, Dan Sullivan, Mark Begich, and Lisa Murkowski throughout the years. The only office to EVER respond, either by phone call or even an automated blanket statement e-mail form response, was Lisa's. Her office called me twice to talk about my issue. I'm a registered Dem and progressive, and I will continue to support Lisa Murkowski.
That's what you do when you put country before party.
Quote: RonCThere will be an incredible power play to get Manchin to become a "No"...I have a feeling he'll be protested, cursed, cajoled, etc. up until the time of the vote.
I dont think so. Like Steverinos said, Manchin needs to score points in WV. If Collins votes yes, this is a done deal. Collins is doing a presser today at 3 PM to let the public know her vote. I believe she is going to announce a yes. If that is the case Manchin will not vote no to keep the progressive base happy when he represents a state that went to Trump by close to 30%.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkI dont think so. Like Steverinos said, Manchin needs to score points in WV. If Collins votes yes, this is a done deal. Collins is doing a presser today at 3 PM to let the public know her vote. I believe she is going to announce a yes. If that is the case Manchin will not vote no to keep the progressive base happy when he represents a state that went to Trump by close to 30%.
Maybe they will stop...but there have already been protesters arrested at his office.
I don't see why they would give up on any of the potential "yes" voters who they can attempt to influence...Flake, Manchin, Collins....
I do understand Manchin will MOST LIKELY vote based on the expected outcome...he may only cast his vote after the deciding vote is cast...but no one knows that for sure.
Quote: 777https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-vote-confirmed.html
Murkowski is a "no" on Kavanaugh.
My guess Kavanaugh's SCOTUS fate depends on Machin and Collins final confirmation votes on Saturday.
For Kavanaugh to become a SCOTUS justice, he needs only one "yes" vote from either Machin or Collins.
Machin or Collins -- who will vote first on Saturday?
If Collins votes first and her vote is a "no", then Machin would vote "no", and if Collins' vote is a "yes", then Kavanaugh certainly wins the nomination and Machin's vote's is meaningless. Machin can then use his meaningless vote to cast a "yes" vote to gain point with his constituent.
Three possible outcomes:
a) 51-50 (in favor of Kavanaugh, with Pence casting a tie-breaker vote)
b) 52-48 (in favor of Kavanaugh)
c) 51-49 (in favor of USA)
(a) -- least likely.
(b), (c) -- toss up.
Quote: 777Three possible outcomes:
a) 51-50 (in favor of Kavanaugh, with Pence casting a tie-breaker vote)
b) 52-48 (in favor of Kavanaugh)
c) 51-49 (in favor of USA)
(a) -- least likely.
(b), (c) -- toss up.
I understand opposition to Kavanaugh by those who feel one of three basic ways:
--They don't like his judicial leanings
--They think he is a bad person based on the way the see the information presented (because they can't possibly know; no one really knows from what has been represented...including those who think he did not do anything)
--Both of the above
....but 51-49 disapproving him is not voting in "favor of the USA" any more than voting for him is voting "against" the USA...that is a big, huge pile of bullshit.
No one who is "for" Kavanaugh is "against" the USA any more than anyone who is against him. That is just ridiculous.
