look Andrew you seem like a well intended individual, but you seem to be trolling me, and your posts are far off topic and largely away from logic and only interested in calling out my character.
I am only singling you out because you follow me from thread to thread with the same posts.
Kavanaugh lied under oath.
these are facts.
I presented the data above, not much more to say really.
EVERYONE knows this, only whataboutisms and bald face lies are the defense.
Because it pushes him too far over the fratty line of good taste. And THEY ARE LIES HE CAN GET AWAY WITH. Tough to prove, but obvious to those who were there.
I rate Trump for sticking with Kavanaugh, and I rate Kavanaugh for gaming the system. It was ballsy and they saw it out.
But to say Kavanaugh didnât lie, câmon, read the yearbook, only a fool would think otherwise.
Not sure what to make of your posts. Postmodernism trying to argue special pleading to Solipism? Itâs an impossible and strange attempt imo. If you would engage and present ideas without personal attack and profanity you may have more luck in your endevours . Of course if your aim is simply to Troll, I apologize.
gave a false definition for âboofâ and a false definition for âthe devilâs triangle.â
aside from the internet definitions and how those words have been used in popular speech for decades, there is the context with which they are used in his yearbook.
So if you want to call me out with your big boy words you had to look up after you watched a Jordan Peterson video and then tell me I am making personal attacks (which I am not, except a direct question to Andrew which wasnât but could be interpreted the wrong way) find the irony in it at least.
Are you not just opening yourself up to a sense of hypocrisy. It is so very contradictory and hard to follow. You state you are not personally attackingâŚthen in the next post do exactly that. Sigh.
I suppose it is better that he had said he could not remember being present and gave vague answers? If he lied , then you have a point , but I still would consider him to be a goody goody, stable person âŚgood or , at least, reasonable conduct for decades, especially in Law ?
The point is that the Man is fit for the job imo âŚno issues raised by anyone of serious consequence , after 6 previous FBI checks. Teenage years were not checked , unless a reason to was suspected and the decision,based on the FBI report after further checksâŚthat the FBI deemed enough,was approved âŚat least no dramatic new evidence came to light.
You appear to have double standards on your âlyingâ exclusions, depending on whom lies?
By your metric Congress would be an empty building. If any politician admitted to having had a Gay relationship or a threesome in their teensâŚI donât care. He has performed his duties well , for decades. There are only a handful of people as qualified in the USA, not thousandsâŚand maybe you would have complained more if the alternative lady candidate was put forward, possiblyâŚon political grounds? . I wonder if you will have the same zeal about any major Politician that is accused of lying in the coming weeksâŚlet us see.
Your 'proof" is that you think the interpretation of the book is wrong. That is like me saying Dr. Fordâs testimony was a complete lie. I give her the benefit of testifying , but it is about proof, not conjecture.Your evidence is âeveryone knows there is only one thing that could possibly be meantâ. Ergo: K must be lying .