• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Kavanaugh SCOTUS Senate Judicial Hearing

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ivwshane said:
How do I live with myself knowing that dishonest pieces of shit like you exist? I stay positive and tell myself that for every idiot, such as yourself, that ignores facts and reality, another person realizes there is a lot of bullshit being spread by people like you and they start questioning and verifying things for themselves.
Click to expand...
No, my friend, you are just so vested in your bullshit narrative that you’ve lost the forest for the trees, and your petulant response to anyone who challenges your narrative is just indicative that you lack a broader perspective.
 
Last edited:
Bitek said:
If anyone successfully lands punches, then yes, they will attract attention. The fact that everyone is talking about it says it found some success.
Click to expand...
We’re talking about the political theater more so than Kavanaugh’s credentials. Feinstein didn’t land any zingers, but asked what I consider to be better and more relevant questions that don’t lend themselves to sound bytes.

if anyone really wants notches on their belt, they need to defeat the Kav nomination, and that was the primary mission.
Click to expand...
The resistance wants a fighter. Booker and Harris simply needed to demonstrate tenacity.

Hirono was in there too, but no one is talking about her for 2020
Click to expand...
She has yet to signal those ambitions.

It was actually a pretty complex attack packaged in a pretty simple question. No wonder Kav was tripping all over himself trying to figure out how to counter.
Click to expand...
I think people view the exchange through confirmation bias. Harris quite effectively set down a well crafter perjury trap. I think her tenacity would cause anyone to trip, but Kavanaugh saw it for what it was and respectfully challenged her bluff. My opinion will not change unless she has evidence to share that supports her innuendos. A great punch is meaningless once blocked.
 
pcgeek11 said:
Because of Harry Reid opening the door and democrats blocking and obstructing.
Click to expand...

The Dems specifically left the handling of scotus nominees as it had been for 100 years.

The GOP changed the rules to confirm Gorsuch a scant 2 months into the new congress after snubbing Garland the year before. Dems didin't have time to obstruct much of anything in that time period. That charge is bullshit.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Nope you guys would have Borked them both, so we did what Harry Reid did and changed the rules.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Bork
"obstruct (someone, especially a candidate for public office) through systematic defamation or vilification."

Damn shame your evil bullshit didn't work on the last 2 nominees.
Click to expand...

Same tired bullshit. Bork's rejection was a bipartisan effort with 6 GOP Senators voting against him.
 
Bitek said:
We're in nuclear combat now.

If Rs wanted to extend an Olive Branch, they wouldn't have done what they did with Kavs documents and the last min dumps and classifications, let alone hold the nomination right before an election.

Ds are under no expectations to not respond in kind. It will broadcast weakness if they do.
Click to expand...
Nuclear combat just means mutually assured destruction.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
Good analytical article on CNN that really frames everything so far for what it is:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/07/poli...donald-trump-republicans-democrats/index.html

In summary:

Kavanaugh didn’t stumble in a way to lose support from fence sitting GOP Senators, and avoided the vague questions laid as landmines and perjury traps

More senior Senators like Feinstein did the actual heavy lifting in terms of asking questions that truly evaluate Kavanaugh as a candidate

Booker and Harris got their campaign slogan and video clips

Everyone seems to have forgotten the tone of bipartisanship that seemed to take center stage at McCain’s funeral.
Click to expand...

I still don't know what a "perjury trap" is. Sounds like another one of those made-up expressions that is only used to signal morons, like "reverse racism."
 
zinfamous said:
I still don't know what a "perjury trap" is. Sounds like another one of those made-up expressions that is only used to signal morons, like "reverse racism."
Click to expand...
Perjury trap is self explanatory within the context of what Harris failed to do.

She posed a question so loosely worded that any response could be used against Kavanaugh, accompanied by a bluff and innuendos of leverage. When pressed for clarification she double downed on a bluff.

Kavanaugh is not on trial. She is welcome to bring forward whatever incriminating evidence she thinks she has. Anything less is just theatrics.

I don’t think she has any cards to play. Aspirations perhaps. But no cards.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
Perjury trap is self explanatory within the context of what Harris failed to do.

She posed a question so loosely worded that any response could be used against Kavanaugh, accompanied by a bluff and innuendos of leverage. When pressed for clarification she double downed on a bluff.

Kavanaugh is not on trial. She is welcome to bring forward whatever incriminating evidence she thinks she has. Anything less is just theatrics.

I don’t think she has any cards to play. Aspirations perhaps. But no cards.
Click to expand...

Huh?
"Have you ever spoken to anyone at the lawfirm of [Dilhole], [Smegma], [Schmuck], and [Johnson] about the Mueller investigation?"

Yes, very loosely worded, very confusing. So, so, so easy to be caught lying about that one! JFC man. The obvious answer, of course, would be: "Not to my recollection."

(Oh wait, then he'd be accused of sounding too much like that incompetent homo-murdering, weapon-selling asshole of a canonized POTUS that the republicans elected way back in '79.)
 
Starbuck1975 said:
Nuclear combat just means mutually assured destruction.
Click to expand...

Courtesy of Mitch McConnell.

Or perhaps the Dems will wimp out, but I think they'll just face primary pressure until they have the fighters who will fire back. There are already those calling for impeachment of justices and court packing. This week has done nothing to slow that down.
 
zinfamous said:
Huh?
"Have you ever spoken to anyone at the lawfirm of [Dilhole], [Smegma], [Schmuck], and [Johnson] about the Mueller investigation?"

Yes, very loosely worded, very confusing. So, so, so easy to be caught lying about that one! JFC man. The obvious answer, of course, would be: "Not to my recollection."

(Oh wait, then he'd be accused of sounding too much like that incompetent homo-murdering, weapon-selling asshole of a canonized POTUS that the republicans elected way back in '79.)
Click to expand...
I thought it was a very straight forward question. Ask me that question: the answer is no and I don't need 10 mins of stumbling over words to answer it.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
We’re talking about the political theater more so than Kavanaugh’s credentials. Feinstein didn’t land any zingers, but asked what I consider to be better and more relevant questions that don’t lend themselves to sound bytes.

The resistance wants a fighter. Booker and Harris simply needed to demonstrate tenacity.

She has yet to signal those ambitions.


I think people view the exchange through confirmation bias. Harris quite effectively set down a well crafter perjury trap. I think her tenacity would cause anyone to trip, but Kavanaugh saw it for what it was and respectfully challenged her bluff. My opinion will not change unless she has evidence to share that supports her innuendos. A great punch is meaningless once blocked.
Click to expand...

It very well have been a bluff, but he was forced to filibuster the question, have an R senator jump in, and run out the clock and day 1.

You can bet staffers were furiously reviewing documents and vulnerabilities throughout the night while the news cycle publicly spectated on his history and his partisan relationships to Trump.

The fact that he didn't quickly come out on day 2 and clearly answer says they were either not comfortable in their responses, or were looking to waste her limited clock time before moving on and leave time for other questions

Either way you can't call her gambit wholly unsuccessful as it's still playing out. She at least owned him in the news cycle and established a narrative. If his nomination fails it's miraculous, but the large intent is to establish lack of credibility when confirmed, esp if a Trump v Mueller event occurs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top