Believe Accusers!

[kuwanger]

Kavanaugh admitted to drinking underage. Please show me from his testimony where he lied about the legal drinking age.

'Kavanaugh explained: "My friends and I, boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. I still like beer... The drinking age as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal. Senior year in high school, people were legal to drink."' -- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...h-wrongly-claims-he-could-drink-legally-in-md

Unless Kavanaugh isn't a person... Yes, he could have legally went across the border to Washington, DC to drink for the last four months as a senior, but that's not at all how he stated it. Travelling across the border to buy alcohol and going back to Maryland to drink would have been illegal. Just generally saying "seniors were legal" is inaccurate. It's no different than if someone lived in Utah a couple miles from Nevada's border said "weed is legal" when it is legal in Nevada. That's not at all how jurisdiction works, and I would think a judge would know this. Admittedly, I don't think he stated anything about the legal drinking age in Connecticut at Yale, so I can't say he lied about the drink age there.

 

[Hanafuda]

'Kavanaugh explained: "My friends and I, boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. I still like beer... The drinking age as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal. Senior year in high school, people were legal to drink."' -- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...h-wrongly-claims-he-could-drink-legally-in-md

Unless Kavanaugh isn't a person... Yes, he could have legally went across the border to Washington, DC to drink for the last four months as a senior, but that's not at all how he stated it. Travelling across the border to buy alcohol and going back to Maryland to drink would have been illegal. Just generally saying "seniors were legal" is inaccurate. It's no different than if someone lived in Utah a couple miles from Nevada's border said "weed is legal" when it is legal in Nevada. That's not at all how jurisdiction works, and I would think a judge would know this. Admittedly, I don't think he stated anything about the legal drinking age in Connecticut at Yale, so I can't say he lied about the drink age there.

He never says "I was legal to drink." He was 17 and admits drinking beer that summer, so he admits underage drinking. So what? But he doesn't say he was legal to drink then. He says seniors were legal. That's the world I lived in too, the drinking age was still 18 when I turned 18, but was bumped to 19 a month later and I had to wait another 11 months after being legal for a month (no gf clause). Weird times. But because it was legal for h.s. seniors to buy beer, drinking beer for high school kids was common. Drinking and buying beer by those over 16 wasn't a big deal - the legal age was 18 and it wasn't a hot issue back then, so most stores would sell you beer if you were at least 16-ish, and no demand for ID. I bought beer once when I was 15, walked into a little mom&pop store, grabbed a six-pack of Budweiser and walked right to the counter. The old man said "nope, until you're 18 if you want to buy beer here, go back there and get something dusty that's not selling." So I bought a six-pack of Shaefer.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

See you just made false accusations. You don't know anything about how she took them, why, how many, or when but that doesn't stop you from making accusations that you have no evidence to back up.

I thought the point here was that too many people make accusations without collaboration? That's exactly what you just did.

It wasn't an accusation. It was a supposition. Learn the diff. Accusation: it happened. Supposition: it could have happened, we can't know.

 

[kuwanger]

He never says "I was legal to drink." He was 17 and admits drinking beer that summer, so he admits underage drinking. So what?

He never said "I was legal to drink" but did he say "I was an underage drinker"? No, just as it was implicit that when 17 he was an underage drinker he implied that when he turned 18 he was legal to drink. As for "so what?" As someone trying so harder to become a lawyer and a judge, generally it shows a lack of respect for the law. There was no point at which he at all apologized or seem apologetic for his behavior/actions or in any way tried to explain his behavior *except* to imply that he was at least legal part of the time.

Weird times. But because it was legal for h.s. seniors to buy beer, drinking beer for high school kids was common. Drinking and buying beer by those over 16 wasn't a big deal

Perhaps this was the reason MADD pushed so hard to raise the age limit to 21 because so many people didn't see it as "a big deal"? Certainly, I remember it being a pretty big deal the shift from 18 to 21 in the 80s. The generally dismissive attitude does seem a "big deal" to me.

 

[Hanafuda]

Certainly, I remember it being a pretty big deal the shift from 18 to 21 in the 80s.

Yeah, it was a big deal if it affected you directly lol. How old are you? I'm 51. I remember most (not all, obviously) men back then holding the 'if you're old enough to fight for your country, you're old enough to drink a beer' position. And most (not all, obviously) women being on the "muh precious baby" side. But despite controversy in the media coverage, I'm sure you know access to alcohol for 16-18 year olds was still very low security even after the law changed. My university had a bar in my dorm my freshman year, even though most of the freshman were still 18 for at least half the year, and the drinking age was 19. There was no carding going on whatsoever - that's a public university selling beer directly to underage students. No scandal, no outrage.

 

[kingfrost]

If she had failed the polygraph they'd have just given another one until she passed.

That is not a supposition. You are not saying that it could have happened. You're saying they definitely would have done so. Your next sentence is a supposition where you say they "might" have already done so.

The difference is small and not important in the greater scheme of things. Suggesting that someone is lying repeatedly and in different ways is much the same as accusing them at some point.

He never says "I was legal to drink." He was 17 and admits drinking beer that summer, so he admits underage drinking. So what? But he doesn't say he was legal to drink then. He says seniors were legal. That's the world I lived in too, the drinking age was still 18 when I turned 18, but was bumped to 19 a month later and I had to wait another 11 months after being legal for a month (no gf clause). Weird times. But because it was legal for h.s. seniors to buy beer, drinking beer for high school kids was common. Drinking and buying beer by those over 16 wasn't a big deal - the legal age was 18 and it wasn't a hot issue back then, so most stores would sell you beer if you were at least 16-ish, and no demand for ID. I bought beer once when I was 15, walked into a little mom&pop store, grabbed a six-pack of Budweiser and walked right to the counter. The old man said "nope, until you're 18 if you want to buy beer here, go back there and get something dusty that's not selling." So I bought a six-pack of Shaefer.






It wasn't an accusation. It was a supposition. Learn the diff. Accusation: it happened. Supposition: it could have happened, we can't know.

So you admit you're using very thin semantics on both accounts to attempt to prove something to everyone that no one but you sees. The last line of a debate is when we start talking about the semantics of what he said.

The truth is if he wanted to say he was underage he could have. He said what he said so that it would mask the fact that he was drinking illegally. Just because everyone does something doesn't make it any less illegal. Just because you say that it didn't matter to anyone at the time doesn't mean it didn't.

Obviously it matters to someone or be would just admitted it. As is, he came very close to lying under oath. Also I suppose you can collaborate that the definitions mean what he said, despite the fact that they are colloquial terms with known meanings?

Yeah, it was a big deal if it affected you directly lol. How old are you? I'm 51. I remember most (not all, obviously) men back then holding the 'if you're old enough to fight for your country, you're old enough to drink a beer' position. And most (not all, obviously) women being on the "muh precious baby" side. But despite controversy in the media coverage, I'm sure you know access to alcohol for 16-18 year olds was still very low security even after the law changed. My university had a bar in my dorm my freshman year, even though most of the freshman were still 18 for at least half the year, and the drinking age was 19. There was no carding going on whatsoever - that's a public university selling beer directly to underage students. No scandal, no outrage.

It doesn't matter if it wasn't a big deal. It was illegal. It doesn't matter if they did a bad job of enforcing the law, it was still illegal. He is an officer of the court system and he showed contempt for the law. He then attempt to use half truths to hide this fact which suggests shame itself. He was also overly defensive and attacked a senator who asked if he ever blacked out.

It would have been simple to say no politely, she wasn't rude and didn't attack him. I'm sure you'll make an excuse but whether or not he raped someone, whether or not you think it was moral of him to break the law, he still behaved horribly.

 

[Deleted User]

Deleted

 

[Hanafuda]

That is not a supposition.

You're right, that particular sentence is not technically a supposition. But neither is it an accusation. Just conditional speculation, and therefore not an assertion of anything definite. The sentence begins with "IF", so it is not an assertion that it actually happened.

So you admit you're using very thin semantics on both accounts to attempt to prove something to everyone that no one but you sees.

I'd rather be a stickler about semantics than presumptive.

Even kuwanger acknowledges that Kavanaugh never stated, "I was legal to drink," which you claimed he said. You are extrapolating statements/admissions from Kavanaugh's actual words by implications you perceive through bias.

 

[kuwanger]

Yeah, it was a big deal if it affected you directly lol. How old are you? I'm 51. I remember most (not all, obviously) men back then holding the 'if you're old enough to fight for your country, you're old enough to drink a beer' position. And most (not all, obviously) women being on the "muh precious baby" side.

In in my late 30s, so it didn't personally effect me. I also don't disagree with the whole "old enough to fight for your country, you're old enough to drink a beer"--although hard liquor was until 21 at the time in Maryland. The thing is, he wasn't even "old enough to fight for your country" and the whole "drinking in high school" obviously wasn't about some respect for adults and their rights. It was guys wanting to drink a lot of alcohol and be "men" who could "hold their liquor". I get it. Not everyone did get wasted. But isn't there something rather disturbing if what he said was true, that on "Beach Week" he didn't write about all the sex adventures he was going to enjoy but about all the drinking games he was going to be/was involved in?

Like I was saying, this just leads me to believe he was an alcoholic. It's why I really tend to believe he did black out at times. It doesn't mean I inherently believe Ford, btw. But it just seems like a deep level of denial.

 

[Tigran]

Hey.. If you're go by Christian beliefs... Trump is pretty much the Anit-Christ.

Daniel 11:37 ESV / 8 helpful votes
He shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women. He shall not pay attention to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all.

Daniel 7:25 ESV / 7 helpful votes
He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.

Rev 13:5
And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

 

[kingfrost]

You're right, that particular sentence is not technically a supposition. But neither is it an accusation. Just conditional speculation, and therefore not an assertion of anything definite. The sentence begins with "IF", so it is not an assertion that it actually happened.




I'd rather be a stickler about semantics than presumptive.

Even kuwanger acknowledges that Kavanaugh never stated, "I was legal to drink," which you claimed he said. You are extrapolating statements/admissions from Kavanaugh's actual words by implications you perceive through bias.

I never claimed he said he was legal to drink. I said he didn't come out and say he wasn't. Whether omission in this case is a form of lie is up to the person watching his performance.

The fact that we've reached Clinton levels obfuscation tells me all I need to know about your bias. You're debating what the meaning of the world if is now. Good show.

I never said she did say that, and it's no wonder you support Kavanaugh and see nothing wrong with his testimony, you're dodging the questions just as he did. You're not answering what I asked so I'm going to assume you don't have a defense for it.

I've not been biases in the least. I don't know if he raped her or not. I do know that he behaved unbefitting of a judge and practiced the same partisan attack he accused people of doing to him.

But please continue to pretend that anyone who doesn't like the way he behaved is some sort of Democratic paid protester like his party members do. It's truly almost reached a "it's because I'm black isn't it?" level of delusion at this point.

 

[Xzi]

'Kavanaugh Described Himself and Friends as 'Loud, Obnoxious Drunks' in 1983 Letter Signed 'Bart''

https://www.newsweek.com/kavanaugh-...nds-loud-obnoxious-drunks-1983-letter-1150388

This confirms that Kavanaugh lied to the senate about being the 'Bart' in Mark Judge's book, "Wasted." How many counts of perjury is too many?

 

[Hanafuda]

In in my late 30s, so it didn't personally effect me. I also don't disagree with the whole "old enough to fight for your country, you're old enough to drink a beer"--although hard liquor was until 21 at the time in Maryland. The thing is, he wasn't even "old enough to fight for your country" and the whole "drinking in high school" obviously wasn't about some respect for adults and their rights. It was guys wanting to drink a lot of alcohol and be "men" who could "hold their liquor". I get it. Not everyone did get wasted. But isn't there something rather disturbing if what he said was true, that on "Beach Week" he didn't write about all the sex adventures he was going to enjoy but about all the drinking games he was going to be/was involved in?

Like I was saying, this just leads me to believe he was an alcoholic. It's why I really tend to believe he did black out at times. It doesn't mean I inherently believe Ford, btw. But it just seems like a deep level of denial.

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I was around in those exact years, and about the same age. I started drinking at 15, and the goal for me and my friends was to get as drunk as possible, when possible. Started smoking some weed during senior year, i.e. 17yo. In college, tried mushrooms and acid a number of times. Cocaine twice, didn't really like it or understand why people would pay so much for it. And all the while, a lot of drinking. Like, 20 beers at a keg party was a normal Friday night. There were numerous times I drank heavily enough to puke my guts out at the end of the night. But I never 'blacked out,' even with the combination of alcohol plus some drugs along the way. I don't even really know what 'blacking out' would be like. So I think it's a stretch to assume that a person who drank heavily for a while in their youth must have also "blacked out."

Also, FWIW, by 33 I stopped drinking altogether. Stayed 'dry' for about 11 years, while my kids were small. About 6 years ago I started sipping whiskey neat on Friday and Saturday nights, never more than 3 drinks in one night though. It is relaxing, but it's not a need. I never drink to intoxication now. It is possible, I know from experience, to be an irresponsible drinker and pothead/Deadhead type under 25yo and turn out straight and responsible after 35yo. From casual conversation with most of the people I know around my age from work, it's the norm, actually.

 

[Joe88]

No judge, lawyer, prosecutor, or the police can order and make someone take a polygraph test.

 

[Hanafuda]

He clearly states repeatedly that it was legal for him to drink ...

I never claimed he said he was legal to drink.

 

[Xzi]

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I was around in those exact years, and about the same age. I started drinking at 15, and the goal for me and my friends was to get as drunk as possible, when possible. Started smoking some weed during senior year, i.e. 17yo. In college, tried mushrooms and acid a number of times. Cocaine twice, didn't really like it or understand why people would pay so much for it. And all the while, a lot of drinking. Like, 20 beers at a keg party was a normal Friday night. There were numerous times I drank heavily enough to puke my guts out at the end of the night. But I never 'blacked out,' even with the combination of alcohol plus some drugs along the way. I don't even really know what 'blacking out' would be like. So I think it's a stretch to assume that a person who drank heavily for a while in their youth must have also "blacked out."

The difference is that I'd hope you would have the good sense to realize you wouldn't make for a good SCOTUS justice. Neither would I or any other "average" citizen. People aiming for a SCOTUS seat are supposed to be well above average in every way.

 

[Hanafuda]

The difference is that I'd hope you would have the good sense to realize you wouldn't make for a good SCOTUS justice. Neither would I or any other "average" citizen. People aiming for a SCOTUS seat are supposed to be well above average in every way.

They should also be human, but sure I agree there's an expectation that they'll be peerless and pure as driven snow or something. I actually think a person who's never been in the ditch is unqualified to judge those who have, but such is life.

 

[Xzi]

They should also be human, but sure I agree there's an expectation that they'll be peerless and pure as driven snow or something. I actually think a person who's never been in the ditch is unqualified to judge those who have, but such is life.

SCOTUS doesn't rule on the guilt or innocence of people who have been in a ditch though, they rule on issues which impact millions of people in sometimes noticeable, sometimes not so noticeable ways. I don't think the standards should be loosened in terms of the moral authority judges are required to maintain, but the unspoken rule of needing to be rich to become a judge does need to be tossed out.

 

[kuwanger]

There were numerous times I drank heavily enough to puke my guts out at the end of the night. But I never 'blacked out,' even with the combination of alcohol plus some drugs along the way. I don't even really know what 'blacking out' would be like. So I think it's a stretch to assume that a person who drank heavily for a while in their youth must have also "blacked out."

Perhaps it is a stretch. It is hard to not have doubt though when a person says they never blacked out or had even partial memory loss from heavy drinking for years. But yes, it is possible it never happened.

It is possible, I know from experience, to be an irresponsible drinker and pothead/Deadhead type under 25yo and turn out straight and responsible after 35yo. From casual conversation with most of the people I know around my age from work, it's the norm, actually.

Isn't that sort of a selection bias? Also, being an alcoholic doesn't necessarily mean being a heavy drinker or having a ruined life. Like you say, it's more about the "need" to drink. A lot of people are in denial about such their "needs" in life. For example, I'd readily admit I'm a sugar-holic and a meat-holic. It doesn't mean I couldn't give those things up. It does mean it'd be very hard for me, and I'd long for them. So, it's possible Kavanaugh moved from a binge drinker (which he heavily downplayed) to a social drinker and was never an alcoholic. But, I really don't see any evidence of that. The simple fact that he seems to be in denial of his past is precisely why I don't believe that interpretation.

 

[Hanafuda]

i have a better question: why is he allowed to be on your supreme court if he perjured himself
loads of the shit in his yearbook has been sourced as being not what he said, like that devil's triangle thing
he was under oath and he lied, isn't that a strike one, you're out kinda deal when you're making them part of your most powerful legal body

Looks like "Devil's Triangle" was a (drinking?) game after all. Not, as Vox and others claimed, a reference to a two man / one woman threesome.

From Kavanaugh's yearbook that got leaked today, these guys ALL list their participation in "Devil's Triangle." The first guy's reference to it actually says he "Lost at Devil's Triangle." Now, there might have been a lot of partying going on at Kavanaugh's high school ... but what's more credible? That this many guys all double-teamed girls before they even had a h.s. diploma in their hand?, or that they came up with a drinking game at parties, gave it a cool name, and it was epic?

High school and sometimes college too is full of tight cliques and inside jokes.

 

[Viri]

Believe accusers!

Spoiler