Brett Kavanaugh saga unfolding

[vooke]

What blinds Evangelicals? I've seen more impressive yearns woven on these board, this is plain silly.

Everything that blinds Catholics minus a shared sex abuse coverup history

How confident are you of that proposition? 

More than you can confidently defend Catholicism

[vooke]

vooke has a bulls-eye on Catholic institutions and anything that bears a remote association  .  Obviously Catholics(at least the white ones) in the US overlook a lot of bad things that the GOP promotes like racism. 

But I don't buy the idea that they are behind Kavanaugh for his religion.  "Pro-life" is just something on the GOP platform that a lot of them can use to justify their tolerance of this party's intolerance without looking bad.

He is a bigot, with a very consistent track record, don't spin for him, Terminator.

Yes, especially in the last few years since Black lives matter, White Catholics have become Republicans first and Catholic second. There used to be differences politically between them and Evangelicals but they have vanished. They are locked with Reps on everything even those explicitly taught against by their church.

You know calling me names does change facts,right?

It's not name-calling when it's factual. Even your introduction of catholics as a group into a discussion on Kavanaugh testifies. If you don't like it, you can change your consistent bigotry, evident on this board for years.

[Dear Mami]

How confident are you of that proposition? 

More than you can confidently defend Catholicism

And there we have it. Where is this defence? When did I propose to make it? Evangelicals are not one bit better in sexual abuse of children, but just like you don't care about their support of Kavanaugh, I'm sure you don't care about that either. You saw kadame post and decided it was time to force a debate on catholicism. With a psychic conspiracy theory to boot, lol.

[Dear Mami]

Soon as you tell me why evangelicals are, our local pharisee.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

vooke has a bulls-eye on Catholic institutions and anything that bears a remote association  .  Obviously Catholics(at least the white ones) in the US overlook a lot of bad things that the GOP promotes like racism. 

But I don't buy the idea that they are behind Kavanaugh for his religion.  "Pro-life" is just something on the GOP platform that a lot of them can use to justify their tolerance of this party's intolerance without looking bad.

He is a bigot, with a very consistent track record, don't spin for him, Terminator.

Yes, especially in the last few years since Black lives matter, White Catholics have become Republicans first and Catholic second. There used to be differences politically between them and Evangelicals but they have vanished. They are locked with Reps on everything even those explicitly taught against by their church.

My last point on this religious tangent.  It's remarkable actually, that the first(and to date only) Catholic President was JFK.  A Democrat(though then the parties were still in some sort of flux).  But JFK was from Massachusetts, a state with liberal values, and so a leftist who forced the south to obey school desegregation laws.  His brother Ted the senator, was also strong on liberal values like minority rights.  Also, at least in big cities, Catholics tend to be Irish, Italians, Polish etc and liberal. 

So the GOP leaning is not so obvious, until you actually take statistics for the whole country.  At that point, you get the Paul Ryan, Rick Santorum types.

[vooke]

How confident are you of that proposition? 

More than you can confidently defend Catholicism

And there we have it. Where is this defence? When did I propose to make it? Evangelicals are not one bit better in sexual abuse of children, but just like you don't care about their support of Kavanaugh, I'm sure you don't care about that either. You saw kadame post and decided it was time to force a debate on catholicism. With a psychic conspiracy theory to boot, lol.

[vooke]

Soon as you tell me why evangelicals are, our local pharisee.

I did. Reread my response

[Dear Mami]

Here's you silly answer. Lets see how concerned you really are about sex abuse and its cover-up in churches. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/05/31/feature/the-epidemic-of-denial-about-sexual-abuse-in-the-evangelical-church/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7704d0f9e9f6

The idea that I should tell you why catholics as a group are obstinate about Kavanaugh is more typical bigotry. You want to know about my stance? You can read it. When you feel confident about explaining evangelicals as a group you can come back with more primitive questions about why a group has done something.

[vooke]

Here's you silly answer. Lets see how concerned you really are about sex abuse and its cover-up in churches. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/05/31/feature/the-epidemic-of-denial-about-sexual-abuse-in-the-evangelical-church/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7704d0f9e9f6

The idea that I should tell you why catholics as a group are obstinate about Kavanaugh is more typical bigotry. You want to know about my stance? You can read it. When you feel confident about explaining evangelicals as a group you can come back with more primitive questions about why a group has done something.

Catholicism takes the largest share of this disease.

[Dear Mami]

My last point on this religious tangent.  It's remarkable actually, that the first(and to date only) Catholic President was JFK.  A Democrat(though then the parties were still in some sort of flux).  But JFK was from Massachusetts, a state with liberal values, and so a leftist who forced the south to obey school desegregation laws.  His brother Ted the senator, was also strong on liberal values like minority rights.  Also, at least in big cities, Catholics tend to be Irish, Italians, Polish etc and liberal. 

So the GOP leaning is not so obvious, until you actually take statistics for the whole country.  At that point, you get the Paul Ryan, Rick Santorum types.

It's my understanding that there was a time Jews and those Catholic groups were not considered properly 'White'. It took a while for them to become so. America is Proestant White country, so Catholics and Jews were outsiders in their own way. Something has happened. That divide no longer exists or it doesn't matter. I've seen devout Catholics defend child-separation policy at the border. I mean deeply devout catholics. I'm p. sure this would not have happened 7 years ago, or perhaps I just used to be naive about racism before I moved into the West. Still, whatever was there before, something else has happened. 

[Dear Mami]

Here's you silly answer. Lets see how concerned you really are about sex abuse and its cover-up in churches. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/05/31/feature/the-epidemic-of-denial-about-sexual-abuse-in-the-evangelical-church/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7704d0f9e9f6

The idea that I should tell you why catholics as a group are obstinate about Kavanaugh is more typical bigotry. You want to know about my stance? You can read it. When you feel confident about explaining evangelicals as a group you can come back with more primitive questions about why a group has done something.

Catholicism takes the largest share of this disease.

More psychic work from you? Lol. Its worse among evangelicals who have no means of co-ordinating reporting and changing policy on a wide scale, but keep up with the comforting assumptions, lol.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I hadn't put him there yet on the sociopath path, but in retrospect, he might indeed be.

If you read Seth Abramson's take on his corroboration twitter thread, you'll notice that he(or at least people he is working very closely with) put out a mistaken identity narrative trying to lay the blame on "Squi", one of his own buddies, and someone who was going out with Dr. Ford at the time.  That moves the needle for the assault, for me, from possible, to probable.

21/ Here we have more CORROBORATION via a Kavanaugh *deception*. Ed Whelan, working apparently with the White House and Kavanaugh—indirectly, if not directly—tried to convince America that Chris Garrett assaulted Ford *without revealing that Garrett was going out with Ford then*.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) October 1, 2018

I guess the point here is, if I am claiming I barely know someone, and that I definitely did not assault them, what is the point of suggesting that Squi likely did it, other than to provide possible deniability in case my cover is blown?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

My last point on this religious tangent.  It's remarkable actually, that the first(and to date only) Catholic President was JFK.  A Democrat(though then the parties were still in some sort of flux).  But JFK was from Massachusetts, a state with liberal values, and so a leftist who forced the south to obey school desegregation laws.  His brother Ted the senator, was also strong on liberal values like minority rights.  Also, at least in big cities, Catholics tend to be Irish, Italians, Polish etc and liberal. 

So the GOP leaning is not so obvious, until you actually take statistics for the whole country.  At that point, you get the Paul Ryan, Rick Santorum types.

It's my understanding that there was a time Jews and those Catholic groups were not considered properly 'White'. It took a while for them to become so. America is Proestant White country, so Catholics and Jews were outsiders in their own way. Something has happened. That divide no longer exists or it doesn't matter. I've seen devout Catholics defend child-separation policy at the border. I mean deeply devout catholics. I'm p. sure this would not have happened 7 years ago, or perhaps I just used to be naive about racism before I moved into the West. Still, whatever was there before, something else has happened. 

Obama unmasked the underbelly.  But like I have mentioned elsewhere, if you try to understand American politics, devoid of the desire to "keep the black man in his place", it will appear very cryptic indeed.

[vooke]

Here's you silly answer. Lets see how concerned you really are about sex abuse and its cover-up in churches. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/05/31/feature/the-epidemic-of-denial-about-sexual-abuse-in-the-evangelical-church/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7704d0f9e9f6

The idea that I should tell you why catholics as a group are obstinate about Kavanaugh is more typical bigotry. You want to know about my stance? You can read it. When you feel confident about explaining evangelicals as a group you can come back with more primitive questions about why a group has done something.

Catholicism takes the largest share of this disease.

More psychic work from you? Lol. Its worse among evangelicals who have no means of co-ordinating reporting and changing policy on a wide scale, but keep up with the comforting assumptions, lol.

They do

[patel]

Truth is hard to come by in these streets...so Ford was going out with squi, who was at the party but left his buddies Judge and Kavanaugh sexually assault his squeeze and never raised hell or care how his ngaofled got home?
Dr Ford is lying, lying through her teeth with that fake 3yr old voice...

I hadn't put him there yet on the sociopath path, but in retrospect, he might indeed be.

If you read Seth Abramson's take on his corroboration twitter thread, you'll notice that he(or at least people he is working very closely with) put out a mistaken identity narrative trying to lay the blame on "Squi", one of his own buddies, and someone who was going out with Dr. Ford at the time.  That moves the needle for the assault, for me, from possible, to probable.

21/ Here we have more CORROBORATION via a Kavanaugh *deception*. Ed Whelan, working apparently with the White House and Kavanaugh—indirectly, if not directly—tried to convince America that Chris Garrett assaulted Ford *without revealing that Garrett was going out with Ford then*.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) October 1, 2018

I guess the point here is, if I am claiming I barely know someone, and that I definitely did not assault them, what is the point of suggesting that Squi likely did it, other than to provide possible deniability in case my cover is blown?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Truth is hard to come by in these streets...so Ford was going out with squi, who was at the party but left his buddies Judge and Kavanaugh sexually assault his squeeze and never raised hell or care how his ngaofled got home?
Dr Ford is lying, lying through her teeth with that fake 3yr old voice...

I guess the point here is, if I am claiming I barely know someone, and that I definitely did not assault them, what is the point of suggesting that Squi likely did it, other than to provide possible deniability in case my cover is blown?

She didn't tell him.  Or anybody for that matter for a long time.  So nothing to raise hell about.  Proposing an alternative theory of an assault "that never took place" on the other hand is suspect.

[Kichwa]

That's strange way of reasoning to conclude that someone is "lying through their teeth",  unless you completely biased.

Truth is hard to come by in these streets...so Ford was going out with squi, who was at the party but left his buddies Judge and Kavanaugh sexually assault his squeeze and never raised hell or care how his ngaofled got home?
Dr Ford is lying, lying through her teeth with that fake 3yr old voice...

I hadn't put him there yet on the sociopath path, but in retrospect, he might indeed be.

If you read Seth Abramson's take on his corroboration twitter thread, you'll notice that he(or at least people he is working very closely with) put out a mistaken identity narrative trying to lay the blame on "Squi", one of his own buddies, and someone who was going out with Dr. Ford at the time.  That moves the needle for the assault, for me, from possible, to probable.

21/ Here we have more CORROBORATION via a Kavanaugh *deception*. Ed Whelan, working apparently with the White House and Kavanaugh—indirectly, if not directly—tried to convince America that Chris Garrett assaulted Ford *without revealing that Garrett was going out with Ford then*.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) October 1, 2018

I guess the point here is, if I am claiming I barely know someone, and that I definitely did not assault them, what is the point of suggesting that Squi likely did it, other than to provide possible deniability in case my cover is blown?

[vooke]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-01/rachel-mitchell-memo-highlights-weaknesses-ford-testimony

If Scribd troubles you just grab it here;
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1F-48wkMLgxvnqTeppVD8ziZooei-TtRX

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-01/rachel-mitchell-memo-highlights-weaknesses-ford-testimony

If Scribd troubles you just grab it here;
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1F-48wkMLgxvnqTeppVD8ziZooei-TtRX

She said he said is guaranteed, because they won't make relevant witnesses(both corroborating and exonerating) show up and be questioned.  They literally don't want to know the truth.  It's bad political optics.  As for Rachel Mitchell, it's not surprising that she would exonerate Kavanaugh.  That is her job.  She is not neutral.  I don't think any sensible person was waiting for her to tell them what did or did not happen. 

They wouldn't have brought her on if they thought she was neutral and interested in finding out anything other than their version of the truth.  She was their proxy, to prevent old white men from looking bad questioning a victim.  This report, is consistent with that contract.  It might as well have been written and signed by Chuck Grassley.  She is a prop.

This particular case has nothing approaching a smoking gun.  Everybody agrees with that.  I have heard that, contrary to popular belief, most such cases don't.  Sex assault is one of the more private crimes.  You are left to rely on peripheral things like who is credible and who tells lies at every potentially adverse mention and indirect corroboration, who has the most to gain/lose etc.

[GeeMail]

 A rare thing, I find vooke's angle apt and the Catholic support for Kavanaugh predictable. The Catholic church would be quite happy to have Kavanaugh in the SCOTUS because they have strategic objectives there. The priest abuse cases are most likely ending up at the SCOTUS. Soon enough, Roe vs Wade and Obbergefel same sex marriages too. All these three matters are Trump issues too, and the Catholic evangelicals (since 2017 Oct 31) will be happy to see the Catholic-driven Sunday rest day laws implemented. The Pope's Laudato Si and his climate change hoax campaign all need a Catholic dominated SCOTUS. With a Jesuit education, Kavanaugh nomination will go through for these reasons. If anybody needed to stop Kavanaugh, perhaps the senators would have raised hell about his love for beer, not something that allegedly happened 30 plus years ago that will be next to impossible to prove. How does a SCOTUS judge balance the love for beer and the need for sobriety in making judgments? That should have been a central question to me.