Poll Dem VP Pic: your choice?

[Toni]

A couple of differences: Walz's actions harmed no one except himself, although they could well have killed anyone in his path. It appears to have been a one time thing. He changed.

Oh, I agree that there are differences; just the opposite way from what you think.
As you said, could have killed somebody. DUI is no joke. It's not some "youthful indiscretion". He was already 30 and not a teenager.
But most importantly, there is evidence for what he did. He blew 0.128 and he copped to a plea deal.

Kavanaugh was not 17 but was in college,

For the "Garth" Blasey-Ford allegation, he was 17 and in high school. A second accuser came forward over a college party incident, yes. Neither one has any actual evidence. The college accuser (Ramirez) could not even be sure it was Kav who allegedly bared his Lil' Brett until she conferred with her lawyer.

harmed other people (multiple women)

There was no evidence for any of that.

and denied having done it.

So it's "he said, she said". Unlike the situation with Walz, where there is actual evidence of a crime having been committed.

I have no idea what his drinking habits are these days but he looks like he tosses them back pretty hard.

How would you even know?
And in either case, alcohol is neither illegal nor against judicial ethics.

So let's sum up. Two things, both 30 years in the past.
One was 31 year old, the other was a teenager, even in the alleged college incident.
One has physical evidence, the others have no evidence.

And yet you think the first is not a big deal, while the second should have scuttled Kav's nomination.
A blatant partisan double standard.

I know that you do not realize this but sexual assault harms victims for years. Sometimes it even kills them. There were multiple victims of Kavanaugh and yes, there were witnesses but they were pretty much blown off. Evidence? No, there is so rarely 'evidence' such as what would be acceptable to you? Video of a confession? Multiple witnesses (actually there were) ? Bruises? Blood? Broken bones? A broken hymen? What evidence is there ever that someone tried to hold you down and stick their dick in you, or grabbed your breast or your crotch. Ask me how I know. And of course, proving non-consent. Really difficult because some people will never believe that unless the male was black and the female was pretty and blonde. Shit be both know that there are instances of gang rape with dozens of witnesses and yet, no charges.

What a tragedy in the world if Kavanaugh had had to pay his own bills and was never on the bench at the USSC! And he, the only one saving us! Almost as terrible as if we had been denied Amy Comey Bryant, or Clarence Thomas....

It is always so refreshing to read the bon mots of someone who has never, ever, ever broken any laws. Even the unfair ones.

 

[laughing dog]

Testimony is evidence. it is not ohysical evidence, but it is evidence. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

 

[Derec]

Thank you. You are a reliable indicator of the relative merits of these three gentlemen. Walz is clearly the best among them, but Gavin Newsom isn't bad.

I disagree. Shapiro would have been better than either of those.

Donald Trump is to be avoided at all costs because of his authoritarian mindset.

Well, sure, but that's not a very high threshold to clear.

 

[Derec]

Testimony is evidence. it is not ohysical evidence, but it is evidence. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

As is his denial that he did not do it.
On the other hand, Walz was actually measured to have BAC of 0.128.

And yet, 31-year old's DUI is seen as mere "youthful indiscretion" while uncorroborated accusations against a 17 year old are seen as something that should end his nomination 30 years later.

 

[laughing dog]

Testimony is evidence. it is not ohysical evidence, but it is evidence. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

As is his denial that he did not do it.
On the other hand, Walz was actually measured to have BAC of 0.128.

And yet, 31-year old's DUI is seen as mere "youthful indiscretion" while uncorroborated accusations against a 17 year old are seen as something that should end his nomination 30 years later.

No one is denying what Walz. It is its relevance to his qualifications and ability that is questioned. Something you have yet to make a case for, let alone a convincing case.

Your butfhurt over how Kavanaugh was treated is not relevant to Wakz’s fitness. Your ire over the perceived double standard is pretty ironic.

 

[Arctish]

Testimony is evidence. it is not ohysical evidence, but it is evidence. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

As is his denial that he did not do it.
On the other hand, Walz was actually measured to have BAC of 0.128.

And yet, 31-year old's DUI is seen as mere "youthful indiscretion" while uncorroborated accusations against a 17 year old are seen as something that should end his nomination 30 years later.

Who are you quoting?

 

[Derec]

I know that you do not realize this but sexual assault harms victims for years. Sometimes it even kills them.

Just because Blasey-Ford claimed it, does not mean it happened.

There were multiple victims of Kavanaugh and yes, there were witnesses but they were pretty much blown off.

There were no eyeball witnesses for the high school party alleged attempted assault. None. And even her friend Keyser not-Söze is skeptical.

A key witness in the Brett Kavanaugh saga comes down on his side

Leland Keyser was a close friend of Christine Blasey Ford in high school, when Ford says Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a small house party. Ford has named Keyser as one of the people who was at the house that night.
Keyser has never corroborated Ford’s account or even key details of it, though. Keyser’s attorney told investigators during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings that she couldn’t recall the night in question, while adding that she believed Ford.
But in a new interview with the Times’s Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, Keyser makes clear that she no longer does.
[...]
Keyser described having many more reservations than she initially let on. She said she tried to assemble the details as described by Ford, but she called her attorney and told him, “You know what, I don’t feel good about something.”

And in the alleged college party incident Ramirez wasn't even sure that the alleged penis belonged to Kav.

NYT: Ramirez told Classmates She Wasn’t Sure Kavanaugh Exposed Himself

And yet you still maintain that these things happened, even without evidence, while dismissing the well-evidenced DUI by Walz as not important.

Evidence? No, there is so rarely 'evidence' such as what would be acceptable to you?

It would be hard to get sufficient evidence for something that allegedly happened three decades ago.
That does not mean we should assume it happened just because it is politically beneficial to do so.

Multiple witnesses (actually there were) ?

Who?

Bruises? Blood? Broken bones? A broken hymen? What evidence is there ever that someone tried to hold you down and stick their dick in you, or grabbed your breast or your crotch. Ask me how I know. And of course, proving non-consent. Really difficult because some people will never believe that unless the male was black and the female was pretty and blonde. Shit be both know that there are instances of gang rape with dozens of witnesses and yet, no charges.

I think you are projecting. Just because there often isn't any evidence, especially decades after the alleged fact, does not mean we should presume guilt. After that time, memories fade. Take the example of Ramirez, who wasn't even sure who exposed himself at that college party. Not that exposing oneself at a party is anywhere close to a DUI in severity.

What a tragedy in the world if Kavanaugh had had to pay his own bills and was never on the bench at the USSC! And he, the only one saving us! Almost as terrible as if we had been denied Amy Comey Bryant, or Clarence Thomas....

So it's all about political benefit. People like Kav, ACB or Thomas should be brought down, even with made up accusations, because you hate their politics. People like Walz should be given a pass because you like his politics.

 

[Derec]

Who are you quoting?

The overall tenor of the posts defending Walz for his DUI.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So it's "he said, she said". Unlike the situation with Walz, where there is actual evidence of a crime having been committed.

Kavanaugh did admit to underaged drinking.

I have no idea what his drinking habits are these days but he looks like he tosses them back pretty hard.

How would you even know?
And in either case, alcohol is neither illegal nor against judicial ethics.

It is illegal if you do it while under age as he admitted to based on his calendar and statements of when he had his drinking parties.

So let's sum up. Two things, both 30 years in the past.
One was 31 year old, the other was a teenager, even in the alleged college incident.
One has physical evidence, the others have no evidence.

A proper investigation into kavanaugh, which could have led to evidence, was never performed, having been scuttled by the White House.

And yet you think the first is not a big deal, while the second should have scuttled Kav's nomination.

kavanaugh’s completely unprofessional demeanor in the hearing, unbecoming of a Supreme Court justice, should have been enough to tank his nomination. It’s not like there isn’t a long list of judges who could have replaced him.

Though we now know that the behavioral standards of Supreme Court justices is so low that virtually nothing he did is actually below it.

 

[Derec]

Your butfhurt over how Kavanaugh was treated is not relevant to Wakz’s fitness. Your ire over the perceived double standard is pretty ironic.

The double standard is very much relevant.
If a DUI from 30 years ago is not relevant to Walz' fitness, then neither are 30 year old claims about Kav when he was a teenager. And yet, Dems tried to use them to derail his nomination.

 

[TomC]

Who are you quoting?

The overall tenor of the posts defending Walz for his DUI.

Who, besides me, has been defending Walz for his DUI?
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

Your butfhurt over how Kavanaugh was treated is not relevant to Wakz’s fitness. Your ire over the perceived double standard is pretty ironic.

The double standard is very much relevant.
If a DUI from 30 years ago is not relevant to Walz' fitness, then neither are 30 year old claims about Kav when he was a teenager. And yet, Dems tried to use them to derail his nomination.

And yet he reacted to the claims like a spoiled baby, yelling at senators and crying about conspiracies led by the Clintons. And we were supposed to believe that’s reasonable and appropriate behavior for the highest of impartial justices??

 

[Copernicus]

Thank you. You are a reliable indicator of the relative merits of these three gentlemen. Walz is clearly the best among them, but Gavin Newsom isn't bad.

I disagree. Shapiro would have been better than either of those.

Well, Shapiro doesn't trigger your obsession with BLM protests, so I can understand that. Walz does, because of the rightwing propaganda campaign directed at his handling of the reaction in black communities to the George Floyd murder.

Donald Trump is to be avoided at all costs because of his authoritarian mindset.

Well, sure, but that's not a very high threshold to clear.

TSwizzle just bonked his head on it when he tried to clear it.

 

[TomC]

Your butfhurt over how Kavanaugh was treated is not relevant to Wakz’s fitness. Your ire over the perceived double standard is pretty ironic.

The double standard is very much relevant.
If a DUI from 30 years ago is not relevant to Walz' fitness, then neither are 30 year old claims about Kav when he was a teenager. And yet, Dems tried to use them to derail his nomination.

Nevertheless, Kavanaugh is on SCOTUS.
Tom

 

[Derec]

Kavanaugh did admit to underaged drinking.

Crime of the century, surely. Much worse than driving 96 mph while drunk.

I have no idea what his drinking habits are these days but he looks like he tosses them back pretty hard.

How would you even know?
And in either case, alcohol is neither illegal nor against judicial ethics.

It is illegal if you do it while under age as he admitted to based on his calendar and statements of when he had his drinking parties.

The sentence you are responding to was in reference to Toni making a big deal about Kav's present day drinking habits. Please pay attention.

A proper investigation into kavanaugh, which could have led to evidence, was never performed, having been scuttled by the White House.

What evidence do you think would have been uncovered? There is no physical evidence, there were no witnesses to the alleged attempted assault, and even CBF's friend is skeptical of her claims.
Unlike Walz who blew 0.128, so there is evidence.

kavanaugh’s completely unprofessional demeanor in the hearing, unbecoming of a Supreme Court justice, should have been enough to tank his nomination.

I think Walz' ranting about couches was pretty unprofessional too.

It’s not like there isn’t a long list of judges who could have replaced him.

Same with potential running mates.

 

[Derec]

Well, Shapiro doesn't trigger your obsession with BLM protests, so I can understand that. Walz does, because of the rightwing propaganda campaign directed at his handling of the reaction in black communities to the George Floyd murder.

There is no "right-wing propaganda". There was a lot of rioting in Minneapolis with the city and state authorities doing precious little to restore order.

 

[laughing dog]

Your butfhurt over how Kavanaugh was treated is not relevant to Wakz’s fitness. Your ire over the perceived double standard is pretty ironic.

The double standard is very much relevant.
If a DUI from 30 years ago is not relevant to Walz' fitness, then neither are 30 year old claims about Kav when he was a teenager. And yet, Dems tried to use them to derail his nomination.

It is not relevant to Walz’s fitness. Double standards are relevant in looking at hypocrisy, but not in the candidates fitness.

 

[Copernicus]

I think Walz' ranting about couches was pretty unprofessional too.

Just in case people have forgotten, here is the sum total of Waltz's "ranting about couches":

“I gotta tell ya, I can’t wait to debate the guy... That is, if he’s willing to get off the couch and show up!”

 

[Derec]

Nevertheless, Kavanaugh is on SCOTUS.
Tom

And Walz will (most likely) be in the Eisenhower Building.

There is still a double standard between how uncorroborated accusations against teenage Kav were handled, vs. how dismissive Dems are over their guy's DUI at 31.

 

[laughing dog]

Your butfhurt over how Kavanaugh was treated is not relevant to Wakz’s fitness. Your ire over the perceived double standard is pretty ironic.

The double standard is very much relevant.
If a DUI from 30 years ago is not relevant to Walz' fitness, then neither are 30 year old claims about Kav when he was a teenager. And yet, Dems tried to use them to derail his nomination.

And yet he reacted to the claims like a spoiled baby, yelling at senators and crying about conspiracies led by the Clintons. And we were supposed to believe that’s reasonable and appropriate behavior for the highest of impartial justices??

I think he clearly lacked an appropriate judicial temperament which should gave scuttled his nomination.