quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Interesting that PP imagined Kavanaugh might be on SCOTUS someday...
Planned Parenthood Ad, 2012:

Even more interesting is the fact that, despite a confirmation process for an appointment to the second most powerful court in the country and despite the acknowledgement of the possibility of a Kavanaugh SCOTUS appointment back in 2012, no accusations were made against him until 6 years later, after the hearings on his SCOTUS nomination had closed.

If I were Kavanaugh I would unleash some very hard language regarding these baseless allegations on Thursday. He's already calling this a smear campaign, so I hope he follows up with some very choice wordage that addresses the level of pure pure filth that is coming from the accusers and the Dems. It would be nice to see him distance himself a bit further from this garbage and put it into perspective. Plus I bet it would feel good.

quote:

no accusations were made against him until 6 years later, after the hearings on his SCOTUS nomination had closed.

But... they did 'scrub' the web of Chrissy Ballsy Fraud's social media history... which may take months.

Grassley has mishandled this, but the Democrats have hurt themselves badly, and it will show in the midterms. You know it's really bad for the Democrats when the NYT calls out the New Yorker for running with the story of a woman who was so drunk she lost consciousness, couldn't speak without slurring her words, and wasn't even certain it was Kavanaugh who stuck his dick in her face. And she is represented by a porn lawyer.

But this depends on Grassley manning up and calling the vote.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
It is Game 7, bottom of the 9th, series tied, home team down one run. Bases loaded. Decent hitter at bat.

Do you call for a suicide squeeze? If there are two outs? If there is one out? At what count?

Given that scenario (which I've actually been in before coaching), the only thing that matters is getting that run at third home. Soooooo.....

1 - If the infield is back, and my batter can bunt, then 'yes' I consider squeezing the run home.
2 - If the infield is in and my batter is good, I tell him to take the pitcher as deep as possible, look for a hanging change or fastball in over the plate, and kill it.
3 - If the infield is in and my batter is good, I tell him to take the pitcher as deep as possible, and try and milk a walk.
4 - 'Or', I tell my batter to lean into any pitch thrown to the inside of the plate. (I can think of two games I've won this way in the past.)

Again, the goal is to win, period. I have no interest in taking games into extra innings and trying to win later. Win here, win now, go home.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
Grassley has mishandled this, but the Democrats have hurt themselves badly, and it will show in the midterms. You know it's really bad for the Democrats when the NYT calls out the New Yorker for running with the story of a woman who was so drunk she lost consciousness, couldn't speak without slurring her words, and wasn't even certain it was Kavanaugh who stuck his dick in her face. And she is represented by a porn lawyer.
.

Creepy Porn Lawyer's allegations are from a different so far unidentified woman. Interesting that his stunt is not getting much attention in the news.

quote:

Again, the goal is to win, period. I have no interest in taking games into extra innings and trying to win later.

Yes... and we are counting on Grassley and McConnell to understand the game.
On the plus side, McConnell did pretty well with Gorsuch.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
It is Game 7, bottom of the 9th, series tied, home team down one run. Bases loaded. Decent hitter at bat.

Do you call for a suicide squeeze? If there are two outs? If there is one out? At what count?

Given that scenario (which I've actually been in before coaching), the only thing that matters is getting that run at third home. Soooooo.....

1 - If the infield is back, and my batter can bunt, then 'yes' I consider squeezing the run home.
2 - If the infield is in and my batter is good, I tell him to take the pitcher as deep as possible, look for a hanging change or fastball in over the plate, and kill it.
3 - If the infield is in and my batter is good, I tell him to take the pitcher as deep as possible, and try and milk a walk.
4 - 'Or', I tell my batter to lean into any pitch thrown to the inside of the plate. (I can think of two games I've won this way in the past.)

Again, the goal is to win, period. I have no interest in taking games into extra innings and trying to win later. Win here, win now, go home.

Winning in the face of uncertainty, with all the marbles on the outcome

Certainly painful and embarrassing, but let here have her say, get through it as quickly as possible. Then make a simple statement about all the accusations being completely false, and move on to the confirmation vote.

quote:

Winning in the face of uncertainty, with all the marbles on the outcome

All the marbles are on the outcome now. If this absurd process drags on and on, and Kavanaugh is not confirmed, we will not only lose an eminently qualified judge, but our ass will be handed to us in the midterms. There is no uncertainty about that.

Take the vote.

If this is the standard for disqualification without a shred of evidence, how will a person who grew up or is growing up in the age of smart phones and social media ever expect to rise to any upper level public office? No one will stand a chance.

Latest WSJ/NBC poll is interesting. Poll shows democrats with 12 percent lead in preference on who will control congress, but it also shows a surge in high interest by republicans to go out and vote. IMO this is very good news and I believe with the full court smear job on Brett Kavanaugh that will only increase republican voter turnout.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/m...oll-shows-1537707600

The poll, while outlining challenges for the GOP, included some good news for Republicans. The party is closing an enthusiasm gap, with 61% of Republican voters now expressing high interest in the election, nearly matching the 65% of Democrats. In polls taken over the first eight months of the year, Democrats had held an aggregate 12-point advantage in the share of supporters showing high interest in the election.

Note the unstated admission implied by the newspaper headline:
If the SCOTUS allows it, States really will outlaw abortion be cause it really is considered morally abhorrent to the majority of the American people.

quote:

No one will stand a chance.

Not quite true, Alan. No conservative will stand a chance.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
If this is the standard for disqualification without a shred of evidence, how will a person who grew up or is growing up in the age of smart phones and social media ever expect to rise to any upper level public office? No one will stand a chance.

This won't slow them down at all if they are a leftist. See Bill Clinton, Keith Ellison, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:

quote:

No one will stand a chance.

Not quite true, Alan. No conservative will stand a chance.

True

NYT: Kavanaugh's New Accuser Recently Told Former Classmates She Still Isn't Sure It Was Him

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...-it-was-him-n2521911

For reasons we outlined here and here, there are legitimate reasons to doubt the credibility of the allegation that Brett Kavanaugh attacked a fellow high schooler at a party when he was 17. That does not mean that his accuser is deliberately lying. She could be telling the truth. She could be telling what she believes to be the truth. But there is no compelling evidence, to put it charitably, to corroborate her claim. In the midst of the firestorm over Prof. Ford's allegation and forthcoming testimony, the New Yorker published a story last night in which a former Yale classmate of Kavanaugh's says she believes Kavanaugh exposed himself to her when they were both drunk at a party in 1983. The details, by her own admission, are hazy and incomplete:

The allegation was conveyed to Democratic senators by a civil-rights lawyer. For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident.


After 35 years, she was "reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh's role in the alleged incident with certainty," but then did so anyway after six extra days of "assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney." That attorney -- as well as Ramirez's new attorney -- are both fierce partisan Democrats, according to sources familiar with Colorado politics (where they're both from). It is impossible not to be skeptical of this. The piece goes on to include a categorical denial from Kavanaugh ("this is a smear, plain and simple"), but more importantly, it quotes several people who were either alleged to have been at this Yale party, or who were very close with both Ms. Ramirez and Kavanaugh, who dispute her charge:

The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party. The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident...In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett.

In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending...The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be involved, and who signed the statement, said of Ramirez, “This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.” She said she hadn’t spoken with Ramirez for about ten years, but that the two women had been close all through college, and Kavanaugh had remained part of what she called their “larger social circle.”...A third classmate, who Ramirez thought had attended the party, said that she was not present at the incident.

That first bolded sentence is really a stunner. Despite dozens of contacts, the New Yorker couldn't even confirm Kavanaugh was in the room. All of the former students who are quoted backing up Ramirez, the most significant of whom is anonymous, say their knowledge of the supposed incident was secondhand, at best. Those with firsthand knowledge all contradict her, as does her own best friend. But the most devastating paragraph of reportage on this front does not appear in the New Yorker piece; it appears in the New York Times, which was one of several major news outlets who dug into this story and declined to run it. Buried deep within a Times article that primarily focused on the Ford allegation is this crucial detail:



After quite a lot of shoe leather reporting, including interviews of dozens of people, the Times could not dig up one shred of firsthand corroboration. What they did unearth, however, is the fact that in the process of seeking to crowd-source her memories of an evening from 35 years ago, Ramirez told a number of friends that she still isn't sure Kavanaugh did it. No wonder the Times declined to publish. As I've written in my commentaries about Prof. Ford's accusation, I have no idea what did or did not happen at a high school party in 1982 (if it took place at all); the same applies to a Yale dorm room in 1983. But credible allegations require some semblance of evidence and corroboration. That threshold has not been met here. Not even close.

All the marbles have been on the line for a long time in this Country. We can tell how important this is for all of us, for our children, and our Grandchildren, by how hard the other side is fighting.

They say they are confident, but they are desperate to have us not press the point, because they are afraid they will lose.

Lies are not truth. Push forward and get this done.

Kavanaugh's letter today was basically bleep you, I'm Millwall.