lol

He did lie in the herings about not knowing of the second accusation, as evidenced by his texts showign he wished to influence possible witnesses... That is at the nery least perjury, which for a judge shoudl be considered a "high crime".

However, it is doubtful any impeachment woudl happen. Nobody has ever attempted to impeach a Supreme Court judge before.

Man you've bought the right wing hat and T-shirt and appear to be drunk on their Kool-aid ..

I am most bothered by the refusal for examination of 90% of documents pertainign to kavanaugh. That is unprecedented. Not to mention his known views about indigenous people, his exreme views about the president not beign held accountable for drimes, and his obvious political prejudice and bias shown in his outburst during the hearings.

@snytiger6 drunk on truth and logic maybe

@gater Just repatign right wing media is not logic.

@SpikeTalon So, of the three concernsI listed above, which is any do you believe were only "left wing lifes"? Did republicans nto hold back about 90% of documents related to Kavanaugh? Did Kavanaugh not make rulings which totally discounted indigenous persons? and/or Did Kavanaugh not write that he thought the president shoudl be exempt from investigations an prosecutions?

I've seem all three reported from more than just oen source, although I thought they merited far more attention than they got in the media.

@SpikeTalon First of all. Democrats had other cocerns which they voiced all along, but the media simply did nto provide much coverage on. That the FBI investigation ws limited (by order of Trump) and could nto definitely confirm facts that took place over 30 years ago, does nto mean it was "bogus", but simply means it possibly could nto be confirmed. There were about a dozen people who asked to be interviewed, and the FBI, under their limited scope of their hands being tied investigation declined/refused to interview. It was more a "show" put onh to seem like they (Team Trump) were actually doing beign fair.

I think when Kavanaugh testified in the Ford hearings, his demeanor and temperament, showed a lack of fitness to be an unbiased judge and made me question his general mental stability.

BTW, don't think I didn't notice you didn't answer my previous question(s). Those were concerns that were reported about before the accusations of sexual assault came out, They are still valid concerns.

I think Kavanaugh will move the U.S. backwards in terms of human rights, as well as in terms of divisions of governmental powers and the rights of workers.

@snytiger6 - I think Kavanaugh will move the U.S. backwards in terms of human rights, as well as in terms of divisions of governmental powers and the rights of workers.

This just proves that you don't know what you're talking about.

@SpikeTalon Wow, I have never been accused of coming from a place of "raw emotion" before. People who have actually met me tell me I liv emy life in a far too sedte way.

As far as the media goes, due to corporate consolidation, if you look at all newspapers, magazines, TV and radio outlets amost 95% are owned by only half a dozen companies. What the media broadcasts as "news" is not jounalism, but rather infotainment, which is only a hair's width above tabloid sensationalism. Thus, the media doesn't cover what is actually important, but rather what gets the highest ratings, which means the more vital and important concerns about Kavanaugh, some of which I stated above, got very little media play. They instead focused on the accusations of sexual misconduct, which gets higher ratings.

Virtually everything you accused the left of doing, is exactly what the left acusses the right of doing. When I said the left may have to exaggerate to be on a more equal footing with the right, it was that kind of thing I was referrign to, that they did so to counter the far biger lies and exaggerations from teh right. The difference being that most of the positions on the left are backed by science based factrs, while most of hte positions on the right are not, which is why the right is so critical of science... not because science is wrong, but because it undermines their political positions.

I am sorry you were falsely accused. I too have been falsely accused, but it was not a legal matter, so much as it was a matter of haivn gtmy credibility and reputation undermined. Perhaps nto as serious as what you experienced, but it ws very upsettign just the same. However, I do not automatically assume that most accusations people make are false as a result of my experince either.

Oo;s... th ecat did a keyboard walk, and I lost my train of thought. Anyway, it is doubtful wither iof us will change the mind of the other, and Kavanaugh has alredy been sworn in. Which makes me wonder why we are still debating this.

I think in his youth Kavanaugh may have done soem thigns he is ashamed of, but it was his court rulings and written opinions which concerned me more. Had the accusations been able to have been substantiated, and restictions put on the investigation makes me think there was something to hide, then I might be more concerned about those s well. However, my focuse has been on the other issues that were very lightly covered by the media, which, uless the accusations were substantiated, were far more important. You seem to think if the media didnt' cover it, then it could nto have been important. We will jus thave to agree to disagree on that.

@gater Just read where you said "This just proves that you don't know what you're talking about.". I based my predictions on his past rulings and his writings, things which so far in oru discussions you appear to have knowledge of, as you have nto referenced them other than to say,in response to myu listing issues that concern me, that if the media didn't cover it then there cant' be anything to it.

However, Kavanaugh's ruling about indigenous persons was of concern enough that the one republican sentaor (from Alaska) who voted against confirmation. This is of concern for human rights in general, were a class of people could be blithely marginalized or discounted.

If you read even articles about his rulings and writings, you could not reasonably dismiss my concerns with the claim that I didn't know what I was talking about. You should find other sources for news and information other than Fox News and other right wing media outlets if you want o be fully informed.

@SpikeTalon As far as the mainstream media goes, I pay mor eattention to stories that they just lightly brush by, than the sensationalist headlines they spend way too much tim eon.

The broadcast media, in order to keep their licenses, must provide a certain portion of programming deemed to be of public service. That is how news broadcasts originated in the first place. For the longest times the news broadcasts lost money, and the networks and stations kept the news and advertising departments completely separte. Then Reasan, eliminated the Fairness Doctrine, and news with a political bias no longer had the requirement of airign the view from teh other side. News quality and depth of coverage dropped, and over time many news department merged with their entertainment divisions, creatin roadcasts tht were more infotainment than news, and because people liked the broadcasts tht were often hard to tell from gossip, the news broadcasts became profitable. This is despite the firign of actual Journalists and replacing them with pretty faces who just read teleprompters, and paying the pretty faces almos tten times more (mostly to not care about the acurracy of the content)..

Anyway, the point is that the requirement to provide a certain amount of time for public benefit still is there, so the mainstream media does cover actual news, but buries it and lightly brushes over hte important stories. That way they can say they covered them, even though they barely do the minimum and the stories often get lost by viewers or listeners (rules apply a little to radio too) in the tabloid like coverage of other things.

Tht is, in part, how America got "dunbed down". and why few people on the right or left really focus on what is really important. They have been distracted by the tabloid like stories.

So, it is the stories they hardly cover which actually are the ones with more important information.

BTW, advertisers and sponsors now do have control over what is or isn't covered in the news rooms. The integrity of the news has been compromised to a point where there is virtually no integrity left. If it wasn't for he legal requirement of public service to keep their licenses, I doubt there would be any remnants of integrity left at all.

Add in that people who sit on the boards of directors, also sit on boards of other corporations, and control how those other corporations are covered int eh media. That is how the media seems to portray the idea that there is dispute about climate change and global warming in teh scientific community, when the only scientists that dispute it (less than 3%) are all employed by or are funded by (even if indirectly) fossil fuel companies. So, we get a vast amount of misinformation through the media too. Taht is only one example, but considerign the recent U.N. report it is current and on my mind. There are many other instances of the corporate influencing media.