Even more problematic stuff

[JimC]

I think they've had a real drought situation, so everything was tinder dry...

[laklak]

It's because of Trump.

[Forty Two]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Swetnick as well - she admitted to lying.

In a television interview she changed the account she gave in a sworn affidavit and Senator Grassley has called for her to be investigated, but you'll have to provide a source for the claim that 'she admitted to lying.'

It's all very well to repeatedly attempt to discredit Kavanaugh's accusers, but it seems you have no problem with the distinct probability that he lied repeatedly in his testimony before the Senate judiciary committee.

When a person signs a sworn affidavit, and then changes the account they swore to, they did not tell the truth. Key parts of her interview with NBC walked back her affidavit, ultimately stating that she had no information on Kavanaugh spiking any punch, or participating in any rapes. He got "a little to handsy", she says, at the party, with other women, not Swetnick.

And, oh, I do have a problem with any lying by either party. However, you need to specify the statements that you're claiming have been shown to be lies. With Swetnick, her factual misstatements are in her affidavit, and she herself walked them back later and changed her story. Kavanaugh did no such thing. So, we are absolutely sure Swetnick did not tell the truth.

The link you cited does not, not even close, show a "distinct probability" that he lied in his testimony. But to see that, you have look past the headline and examine exactly what they are claiming are "lies."

For example, the Guardian says that "former roommates have come forward to say he told bald-faced lies." However, that is not in the least an accurate description. The link in the Guardian article is to a former roommate (for a couple of months) who says he saw Kavanaugh "stumbling drunk" regularly. Kavanaugh never denied being stumbling drunk regularly, and he admitted to drinking to excessive quite a bit in high school and college. What he denied was blacking out. And, Roche has no knowledge of whether Kavanaugh blacked out. Roche claims that Kavanaugh drank enough to black out, but Roche can't possibly know that. He doesn't say that Kavanaugh had told he had blacked out. His allegation of Kavanaugh drinking to black-outs is based on him observing Kavanaugh getting drunk at parties. Kavanaugh says "I didn't black out." Roche says "I think he drank enough to black out." There is neither a lie there, nor a "distinct probability" of a lie. It's "possible" one or the other, or both, are lying. Roche also says that Kavanaugh lied in explaining the meaning of yearbook quotes - however, Roche didn't know Kavanaugh in high school, nor does Roche have personal knowledge of what Kavanaugh and his friends meant by different turns of phrase, and turns of phrase have different meantings, sometimes multiple meanings. Does boof not mean fart? I've heard it used for that - I'm also from the northeast. Does devil's triangle not mean a drinking game ? The term "devi's threeway" can be used as a term to mean a threesome in sex, or a set of three of anything that is difficult or troublesome, like a devil's threeway of problems. A yearbook, any yearbook, in the US - in the 1980s for sure - was filled with innuendo, references, profanity, vulgarity and inside jokes were the rage. We had drinking games that were peculiar to my high school and college that nobody else ever heard of, and sometimes they involved innuendo laden terminology.

So, what's the lie?

At bottom, when a person says one thing on one day, and then reverses themselves on the next day or materially changes the story, then they aren't telling the truth on at least one of those occasions. That's just logic. Where A and B are inconsistent, if A is true, then B cannot be true. If B is true, then A cannot be true. A and B can both be untrue, but A and B cannot both be true. If one or the other, or both, are untrue, then the person making statements A and B must be telling an untruth. That's Swetnick.

We don't have that with Kavanaugh. What we have with Kavanaugh are things like "Kavanaugh says he didn't black out..." -- someone else says that he got stumbling drunk a lot, so it's not credible (to that person) that Kavanaugh did not black out. Both A and B in that scenario can be true or untrue, and they are not inconsistent. Kavanaugh could well have been a heavy drinker at that age, been stumbling drunk a lot, but never blacked out. Also, Kavanaugh and Roche may well have different definitions of "regularly" and "stumbling drunk" and the like. Roche may not have been much of a drinker, and to him, drinking 6 beers might be massively excessive, but to Kavanaugh and his circle, 6 might have been the warm-up. Anyone who went to high school and college has a "lived experience" (most likely) that substantiates that distinction.

So, here's where we are, as I see it. You've spent a lot of time attempting to discredit Blasey Ford. You've also claimed that other accusers were lying. When called on that,

I couldn't be called on that - I'm correct. Read the articles I posted. Swetnick lied. Ford lied (or at least told inconsistent stories if she honestly believe her inconsistent stories were true) and Ford also spoke untruths about the second front door on her house, among other things. And, the accuser Leighton lied. So, there is no calling me out where I'm accurate.

you cited one person who'd falsely claimed to be an accuser only known as 'Jane Doe.'

And Swetnick. And Leighton herself stated to the committee - outside of the actual letter - that she was raped by Judge Kavanaugh. I.e. there are two big lies from her and you are ignoring one of them. One lie was that she was the drafter of the letter. The other lie was that "Judge Kavanaugh raped me." Her words, separate from the letter. She did not only say "I am Jane Doe" and lie about that. She also said "Kavanaugh raped me." That too was a lie. Therefore, "another" Kavanaugh accuser lied.

Swetnick also lied.

Also, Ford told inconsistent stories - where two stories are inconsistent, they cannot both be true. She also did not tell the truth about the second front door. Arguably, she did not tell the truth about her aviophobia (however, that's a bit subjective, because she can claim to have anxiety about flying without being unable to fly, so that one I grant her the benefit of the doubt).

What that person lied about is being the accuser known as 'Jane Doe.' So this was not a case of an actual accuser lying.

Munro-Leighton lied both about being the writer of the letter, and about being raped. She said, in a separate email, "Kavanaugh raped me."

You then claimed that Swetnick 'admitted to lying.' When asked to provide a source for this claim, you failed to do so, and instead presented your own interpretation which you believe shows that she was lying. Your claim that Swetnick 'admitted to lying' appears to be false.

That isn't accurate. I provided sources, and Swetnick's NBC interview proved it, because her story there was different from her claims to the committee. Swetnick accused Kavanaugh of spiking drinks for the purpose of getting women too drunk to resist, and then raping them - lining up with other boys outside rooms where girls were being raped inside - about 10 parties -- "Swetnick said in the written statement that “I have a firm recollection of seeing boys” — including Kavanaugh and Judge — “lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their ‘turn’ with a girl inside the room.”"

In her affidavit, Swetnick wrote, in paragraph 12, that she "witnessed efforts by Kavanaugh to cause girls to become so inebriated and disorientated so that they could then be gang raped." In her NBC interview, she walked that back, and she never knew about any rapes going on at these parties, and Kavanaugh was only drinking out of red cups and handing red cups to other party goers. She came to the conclusion that at these 10 parties that she refers to in her affidavit there were gang rapes going on in the rooms she wasn't in, because she herself was raped by someone other than Kavanaugh. I.e. she lied in her affidavit - she did not "witness" Kavanaugh taking efforts to cause girls to become so inebriated and disoriented sot hat they could then be gang raped." She does not even know if any gang rape occurs. She doesn't know Kavanaugh did anything other than hand red cups to people, and she doesn't know if that made anyone disoriented or so inebriated they were then gang raped.

I.e. her affidavit was a crock of shit, and her subsequent statements proved it. You can ignore it all you want, but that's the actual fact.

As I pointed out, you've spent a lot of time and energy attacking Kavanaugh's accusers, but have been silent in regards to Kavanaugh's own apparent lack of honesty. If we're going by your standard (inconsistencies = lies), then Kavanaugh was definitely lying. He claimed in his testimony that he'd never attended a gathering such as Blasey Ford described. However his own calendar shows him attending such a gathering in July of 1982.

I've already been over this accusation that his statement that he never attended a party like the one Blasey Ford describes. It really takes a leap to suggest that he was saying he never was in a house with several people in it drinking. If that's what you really think is meant by "I wasn't at a party like the one described by Ford" then have at it. However, if you look at the entirety of his statement - the sentences before and after he made that statement - you will see that he admitted to often going to parties in high school. In his same Senate testimony - he says he got together with friends often - went to parties. Not all gatherings of a few people for drinks are "like the one described by Blasey Ford." I've been to many many gatherings of a few friends with drinks in high school -- yet, I've never been to one like the one described by Blasey Ford. Am I lying?

Kavanaugh also claimed that he'd never attended a gathering which included the group of people that Blasey Ford identified. Again, his calendar shows that the July gathering did indeed include that group of people.

That's not accurate at all. HIs calendar does not indicate the same people in attendance. For example, Ford's best friend - Leland Keyser is not suggested as being in attendance at the appointment on Kavanaugh's calendar. The July 1 calendar says "Workout / Go to Timmy’s for Skis w/ Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi”" - That's not the same list as Ford recounted. Timmy also lived nowhere near where Ford vaguely placed the house party.

Blasey Ford named these people before the calendar was released,

She named Timmy? Tom? Squi? Bernie? When? Where? What are you talking about?

so it's not as if she'd found that entry on the calendar and used it as a source for her claim. By your own standard, Kavanaugh was lying.

No, by any standard, Kavanaugh has not been shown to be lying in the least. He brought out a calendar which at most shows a get together with mostly different people at a different house. Was Leland Keyser there? Ford's account had her and Keyser with Mark, Brett, and PJ. How does that in the least suggest Kavanaugh is lying?

Kavanaugh claimed in his testimony that all four people named by Blasey Ford said that the gathering 'never happened.' This isn't a mere inconsistency, it's simply a lie. The actual statements by these people were that they don't recall the gathering.

Here is Keyser's quote through her lawyer, "However, as my client has already made clear, she does not know Judge Kavanaugh AND she has no recollection of being at a party where he was present, with or without Dr. Ford." That is about the clearest refutation one can have, and if you think Kavanaugh saying that means the gathering "never happened" is a lie, then I can only say that I differ with you on it. If I was looking for someone to corroborate that I wasn't at a particular high school party 36 years ago, and someone gave me that statement, I could hardly expect a better refutation. A person who you say was at the party with me says she does not know me and has NO RECOLLECTION of ever being at a party with me, with or without you. That is flat out exonerating, if we believe her. Look, Ford says she got to this alleged party and the others were already there -- Leland was there - and folks were drinking already. Kavanaugh, Judge, PJ and the person whose house it was (who she conveniently does not remember, lol), and they were all socializing. So Leland would have "known" Kavanaugh, if that's true. She doesn't say she has no recollection of knowing Kavanaugh - she says she doesn't know him.

When Kavanaugh was asked about his drinking in high school (as evidenced by various things in his high school yearbook), he didn't give an honest answer, but instead launched into a description of himself as an exemplary student and athlete. This was evasion, pure and simple.

That's just dishonest, Lemmerdeur - he admitted drinking heavily in high school and in college. He admitted to drinking too much, excessively. That was honest. He can be an exemplary student, which he was, and an athlete, which he was, and also be a heavy drinker, which he admitted to. What's the lie? When I point to Swetnick lying, I point to her exact statement - and I say "see, this other statement over here shows that the original statement in her affidavit - paragraph 12 - was not true - according to herself - she refutes her own testimony." When you accuse Kavanaugh of lying you don't quote him - you mischaracterize him, and then declare he's evading because someone else says something different. That's not proving him a liar.

If you say he lied - then show me the statement he made that was "not true." and, show me how you can tell it's not true. I did so in ironclad fashion with regard to swetnick, Ford, and Leighton. I quoted them - and quoted them again refuting their own statements.

When asked about his inclusion among 'Renate Alumni' in the yearbook (referring to a young woman) Kavanaugh claimed that it was 'clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us.' The woman in question didn't see it that way when she learned of it,

That doesn't mean it's a lie. both can be true -- Kavanaugh could have meant X and the woman in question could see it as Y. That's not a lie.

and elsewhere in the yearbook one of the 'Renate Alumni' printed this:

'You need a date
and it’s getting late
so don’t hesitate
to call Renate.'

It seems pretty clear that the 'Renate Alumni' were naming her as 'easy,' and Kavanaugh would certainly have known that, but instead of admitting to being an insensitive high school boy, he lied about it.

He didn't deny being insensitive. You may not find it believable, but that doesn't mean you've shown him to be lying. there is lots of stuff in lots of yearbooks that is insensitive, full of innuendo, impuning the sobriety and chastity of boys and girls in the 1980s -- that doesn't mean that they weren't meant in good fun and that the persons weren't "one of us." These are yearbook quotes. If you're not from the US, then you don't understand what they were, especially in the more free-wheeling days of the 1980s.

Kavanaugh was consistently evasive, dishonest, and belligerent in the hearing about Blasey Ford's allegations, but you apparently don't see any problem with that, instead you choose to denigrate his accusers, even returning to that tack in response to a post about how Blasey Ford is still being targetted by right-wing creeps.

We're talking about "lies," not belligerence. You've identified exactly zero proven lies by Kavanaugh. I have proved lies by Ford, Swetnick and Leighton - I've proved them with their own words. You've at best shown Kavanaugh to be arguably evasive in not phrasing his drinking in the right light (however, you did not show he lied - he drank, he admitted it. He drank to excess, he admitted it). What is the truth about his drinking that he lied about?

There is a comment about Renate and needing a date -- you think that means if you want to fuck someone, call Renate, she'll fuck you no problem. However, that isn't what the quote says, and Kavanaugh says it was meant good naturedly and didn't mean fucking. He never walked his own statement back, did he? That's what he says it means. At most, you can find it non-persuasive. You don't believe him. Your finding that nonpersuasive and incredible doesn't mean he's lying.

The Blasey Ford hearing hasn't the only time Kavanaugh was dishonest in his answers

Wait wait - which statement in the Blasey Ford hearing by Judge Kavanaugh was shown to be a lie? You haven't established one. You've found him not believable. You've found him unpersuasive.
You think he was evasive. But you haven't ESTABLISHED that he was. So, you say the Ford hearing wasn't the ONLY time -- but you haven't even shown that he was dishonest at THAT time.

to the Senate, however. In hearings held in 2004 and 2006 he claimed that he'd never seen materials that had been stolen from Democratic senators during the run-up to judicial confirmation hearings when he'd been with the White House counsel’s office in the Bush II administration. In the hearings of September 2018, it was shown that he'd definitely seen at least some of that material. Here's the exchange where he's asked about it directly:

SENATOR LEAHY: So you didn’t realize what you had was a stolen letter [sent] by me, that you had a letter that had not been sent to anybody, had not been made public?

KAVANAUGH: All I see that I said was “Who signed this?” That’s all I see.

He evades answering the question because he knows that he's previously denied ever seeing any of this material.

When Leahy referred to an email sent to Kavanaugh while he was with the White House counsel's office which explicitly told him that the materials were obtained by illicit means, Kavanaugh claimed that he 'couldn't recall' such an email.

So - what here is a lie told by Kavanaugh? What's the statement? Look - a lie is something someone says that is not true (and intentionally untrue, not just wrong). So, quote Kavanaugh's lie. Is it "who signed this?" Is it "I don't recall?" Where does he say something that is inconsistent with his prior testimony of not having seen materials? It's not in what you just quoted. Fucking hell - ESTABLISH IT!

Kavanaugh said "XXXXXXXXXX"

I can prove that's untrue because "YYYYYYYYYYYYY"

What we have is a record of dishonesty on Kavanaugh's part. Not merely dishonesty in regards to the Blasey Ford allegation, but dishonesty about his past while in the Bush administration. For somebody in such a vital and important governmental position, such dishonesty in hearings before the US Senate is damning. It appears that you don't care about that, and would rather continue to focus on your pet project of discrediting Blasey Ford and other women who've made allegations regarding his behavior toward them.

How was his statement in the prior testimony was false, much less intentionally so? You don't even quote him. What, exactly, did he say about stolen emails?

Here's a Washington Post article about that -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... af692bbacf - according to this article, nothing was "stolen." Democrats saved documents to a computer that was "shared with Republicans" and Miranda read them. Leahy calls them stolen, and uses the word "hacked," but no claim is made that anyone did anything other than read documents that were put on a shared computer. L'Emmerdeur, if you and I share a computer, and you put stuff on the shared computer that both of us have access to, I'm allowed to read whatever is on there. It's not hacking or stealing, just because you goofed and put stuff on there you'd rather others not see.

So, if Kavanaugh was asked in 2004 if he ever saw documents stolen from Democrats and he said "no" - what's the lie? If he saw a draft letter of Pat Leahy's which was saved to a shared computer, how does that mean he "lied" when he said no? Was it established that the letter was stolen? Was it established that Kavanaugh could have or should have known it was stolen? Surely you see that you have not established that anyone has lied. At most you've established that Pat Leahy, a Democrat, says a draft letter of his was stolen/hacked from a computer. He asks he Kavanaugh was saying he didn't know it was stolen? Kavanaugh answers "who signed this?"

What's the lie?

[Forty Two]

It's because of Trump.

Trump's grandfather showed Benito Mussolini how to fascist. He and Prescott Bush were buddy buddies with each other, Benito and Adolph back in the day.

[Forty Two]

Dutchland had the best trolls...

Dutch man, 69, starts legal fight to identify as 20 years younger

A 69-year-old Dutch “positivity guru” who says he does not feel his age has started a battle to make himself legally 20 years younger on the grounds that he is being discriminated against on a dating app.

Emile Ratelband told a court in Arnhem in the Netherlands that he did not feel “comfortable” with his date of birth, and compared his wish to alter it to people who identified as transgender.

Ratelband said that due to having an official age that did not reflect his emotional state he was struggling to find both work and love. He has asked for his date of birth to be changed from 11 March 1949 to 11 March 1969.

“When I’m 69, I am limited. If I’m 49, then I can buy a new house, drive a different car,” he said. “I can take up more work. When I’m on Tinder and it says I’m 69, I don’t get an answer. When I’m 49, with the face I have, I will be in a luxurious position.”

Doctors had told him his body was that of a 45-year-old man, Ratelband argued. He described himself as a “young god”....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... _clipboard

He wants to be able to lie to women about his age, so that he can fuck more of them. How does this strike the new wave feminists out there? Isn't it rape to get sex by deception because consent must be freely given without fraud?

But, then, a trans woman shouldn't have to disclose that she was a biological male, though, because to not want to fuck a trans-woman (who are real women ,not just trans) is trans-phobic... so maybe not wanting to fuck an older man who identifies as younger is age-phobic.

This gets complicated.

[Forty Two]

Soooo problematic....

"A Christmas Story" inspired photo shoot outrages Progressives

[Brian Peacock]

...
This gets complicated.

Yeah, you kind of made my point about this being an exercise in trolling. And it's only complicated by an obession with other people's genitals riding on the back of an assumption that someone else's gender is your business and that people choose their sexual orientation like they choose their footwear.

[laklak]

Republicans give 1.7 BILLION dollars in tax incentives to Jeff Bezos to open new headquarters to New York City. Unconscionable! Fucking crony capitalism! The Party of the Little Guy, The Democrats, would never do something like that. GOP scum-bags Bill Blasio and Andrew Cuomo should be ashamed of themselves!

Sorry, what? They're DEMOCRATS?????

OK then. This is a GREAT deal for the Little Guy! Yep! Just think of all that 1.7 billion that will trickle down! Cuomo 2020! Fuck the 1 Percent! All Power to the Peeps!

That's why I call them "Democrites". Because "hypocrites", see? Geddit?

Lol.

https://slate.com/business/2018/11/new- ... tence.html

[pErvinalia]

Since when did the Democrats care for the little guy?

[laklak]

It's what all of them I know claim.

[Hermit]

So do all Republicans. Deregulation and trickle-down economics make the little man a winner.

[laklak]

More like a wiener.

[Forty Two]

...
This gets complicated.

Yeah, you kind of made my point about this being an exercise in trolling. And it's only complicated by an obession with other people's genitals riding on the back of an assumption that someone else's gender is your business and that people choose their sexual orientation like the choose their footwear.

Where did I say anything about people choosing their sexual orientation like they choose their footwear, or that I was concerned with other people's gentials or that I thought their gender was or should be my business?

What's an exercise in trolling? I'm not following.

You seem to be responding to something I didn't say.

[Forty Two]

Republicans give 1.7 BILLION dollars in tax incentives to Jeff Bezos to open new headquarters to New York City. Unconscionable! Fucking crony capitalism! The Party of the Little Guy, The Democrats, would never do something like that. GOP scum-bags Bill Blasio and Andrew Cuomo should be ashamed of themselves!

Sorry, what? They're DEMOCRATS?????

OK then. This is a GREAT deal for the Little Guy! Yep! Just think of all that 1.7 billion that will trickle down! Cuomo 2020! Fuck the 1 Percent! All Power to the Peeps!

That's why I call them "Democrites". Because "hypocrites", see? Geddit?

Lol.

https://slate.com/business/2018/11/new- ... tence.html

Amazon and Bezos are cool and hip for now. If it was Ford or GM, then it would be a problem.

[Sean Hayden]

Democrats actually oppose the move and are expected to start picking fights with Amazon.