Is Brett Kavanaugh a beta?

[junior chįmp]

Dude was a virgin till after college....of course he's beta

He can’t be a Virgin and a rapist. Make up your damn mind.

Raping is beta too

[HillGoose]

Dude was a virgin till after college....of course he's beta

He can’t be a Virgin and a rapist. Make up your damn mind.

Raping is beta too

So you mean Nicki Minaj and Tupac and Eminem and all the other rapers are also really just betas? I thought they had lungs, not gills! This beta conspiracy goes all the way to the top!

Was this Nicki Minaj before she transitioned to be human looking?

[junior chįmp]

Dude was a virgin till after college....of course he's beta

He can’t be a Virgin and a rapist. Make up your damn mind.

Raping is beta too

So you mean Nicki Minaj and Tupac and Eminem and all the other rapers are also really just betas? I thought they had lungs, not gills! This beta conspiracy goes all the way to the top!

Was this Nicki Minaj before she transitioned to be human looking?

You godamned goose

[Wikipedia delenda est]

No, he's just scum.

Voted no because this particular kind of Greek letter classification (whether "ironic" or not) is disgusting and a self-proclaimed liberal should know better.

[mvd10]

In 1 year this ''beta'' will be be on the Supreme Court, Ford will be in jail for perjury and the leftist keyboard warriors will (still) be working at the local Starbucks .

[Mr. Smith]

How is someone like Kavanaugh even remotely in league with the likes of:




I mean, that's insulting.

[mencken]

In 1 year this ''beta'' will be be on the Supreme Court, Ford will be in jail for perjury and the leftist keyboard warriors will (still) be working at the local Starbucks .

This assumes there is justice in this world. 50% chance of the first one happening; 0% chance of the second one; I'll grant you the third though.

[HillGoose]

In 1 year this ''beta'' will be be on the Supreme Court, Ford will be in jail for perjury and the leftist keyboard warriors will (still) be working at the local Starbucks .

This assumes there is justice in this world. 50% chance of the first one happening; 0% chance of the second one; I'll grant you the third though.

Did she get proven as lying? I mean maybe if that's the case but last I heard it's still being investigated or whatever. Justice could go either way but nobody knows who is telling the truth.

[mencken]

In 1 year this ''beta'' will be be on the Supreme Court, Ford will be in jail for perjury and the leftist keyboard warriors will (still) be working at the local Starbucks .

This assumes there is justice in this world. 50% chance of the first one happening; 0% chance of the second one; I'll grant you the third though.

Did she get proven as lying? I mean maybe if that's the case but last I heard it's still being investigated or whatever. Justice could go either way but nobody knows who is telling the truth.

It wouldn't matter even if she was. Ask James Clapper about the severe repercussions of lying to Congress. Given that Ford's testimony seems conveniently scarce on anything that can be demonstrably refuted (except the eyewitnesses she named, but that is a she-said-everyone-else-said ordeal) I doubt we will even get to that phase.

In the meantime a few 'Republicans' who hope in vain to be invited to Georgetown cocktail parties may sink the nomination.

[HillGoose]

In 1 year this ''beta'' will be be on the Supreme Court, Ford will be in jail for perjury and the leftist keyboard warriors will (still) be working at the local Starbucks .

This assumes there is justice in this world. 50% chance of the first one happening; 0% chance of the second one; I'll grant you the third though.

Did she get proven as lying? I mean maybe if that's the case but last I heard it's still being investigated or whatever. Justice could go either way but nobody knows who is telling the truth.

It wouldn't matter even if she was. Ask James Clapper about the severe repercussions of lying to Congress. Given that Ford's testimony seems conveniently scarce on anything that can be demonstrably refuted (except the eyewitnesses she named, but that is a she-said-everyone-else-said ordeal) I doubt we will even get to that phase.

In the meantime a few 'Republicans' who hope in vain to be invited to Georgetown cocktail parties may sink the nomination.

How can she be proven as lying if nothing she says can be demonstrably refuted though? Like that's where I'm at with it. If nothing can be proven then I think it's up to Congress to make their own decision on it, but if I was a Republican Senator I couldn't in good conscience vote for Kavanaugh knowing that he might have done it, you know? Just like nominate someone else who doesn't have a creepy past would be my thinking.

[mencken]

In 1 year this ''beta'' will be be on the Supreme Court, Ford will be in jail for perjury and the leftist keyboard warriors will (still) be working at the local Starbucks .

This assumes there is justice in this world. 50% chance of the first one happening; 0% chance of the second one; I'll grant you the third though.

Did she get proven as lying? I mean maybe if that's the case but last I heard it's still being investigated or whatever. Justice could go either way but nobody knows who is telling the truth.

It wouldn't matter even if she was. Ask James Clapper about the severe repercussions of lying to Congress. Given that Ford's testimony seems conveniently scarce on anything that can be demonstrably refuted (except the eyewitnesses she named, but that is a she-said-everyone-else-said ordeal) I doubt we will even get to that phase.

In the meantime a few 'Republicans' who hope in vain to be invited to Georgetown cocktail parties may sink the nomination.

How can she be proven as lying if nothing she says can be demonstrably refuted though? Like that's where I'm at with it. If nothing can be proven then I think it's up to Congress to make their own decision on it, but if I was a Republican Senator I couldn't in good conscience vote for Kavanaugh knowing that he might have done it, you know? Just like nominate someone else who doesn't have a creepy past would be my thinking.

The burden of proof lies with the accuser (unless we are going to revert to 1690s Salem standards of justice)

I really do not feel that any of this is relevant, regardless. He ought to be voted on based on his judicial merits (I personally would have opposed his nomination until he incurred the wrath of the leftist lynch mob); if Ms. Ford wants to take civil action thereafter, she can have her far-fetched claims tested in a court of law.

[Figueira]

In 1 year this ''beta'' will be be on the Supreme Court, Ford will be in jail for perjury and the leftist keyboard warriors will (still) be working at the local Starbucks .

This assumes there is justice in this world. 50% chance of the first one happening; 0% chance of the second one; I'll grant you the third though.

Did she get proven as lying? I mean maybe if that's the case but last I heard it's still being investigated or whatever. Justice could go either way but nobody knows who is telling the truth.

It wouldn't matter even if she was. Ask James Clapper about the severe repercussions of lying to Congress. Given that Ford's testimony seems conveniently scarce on anything that can be demonstrably refuted (except the eyewitnesses she named, but that is a she-said-everyone-else-said ordeal) I doubt we will even get to that phase.

In the meantime a few 'Republicans' who hope in vain to be invited to Georgetown cocktail parties may sink the nomination.

How can she be proven as lying if nothing she says can be demonstrably refuted though? Like that's where I'm at with it. If nothing can be proven then I think it's up to Congress to make their own decision on it, but if I was a Republican Senator I couldn't in good conscience vote for Kavanaugh knowing that he might have done it, you know? Just like nominate someone else who doesn't have a creepy past would be my thinking.

The burden of proof lies with the accuser (unless we are going to revert to 1690s Salem standards of justice)

I really do not feel that any of this is relevant, regardless. He ought to be voted on based on his judicial merits (I personally would have opposed his nomination until he incurred the wrath of the leftist lynch mob); if Ms. Ford wants to take civil action thereafter, she can have her far-fetched claims tested in a court of law.

Not sure why I'm replying to this misogynistic trash line of comments, but:

"We should only judge him based on his judicial merits"
"I started supporting him because a woman said that he did a bad thing when he was 17"

Pick one.

[mencken]

In 1 year this ''beta'' will be be on the Supreme Court, Ford will be in jail for perjury and the leftist keyboard warriors will (still) be working at the local Starbucks .

This assumes there is justice in this world. 50% chance of the first one happening; 0% chance of the second one; I'll grant you the third though.

Did she get proven as lying? I mean maybe if that's the case but last I heard it's still being investigated or whatever. Justice could go either way but nobody knows who is telling the truth.

It wouldn't matter even if she was. Ask James Clapper about the severe repercussions of lying to Congress. Given that Ford's testimony seems conveniently scarce on anything that can be demonstrably refuted (except the eyewitnesses she named, but that is a she-said-everyone-else-said ordeal) I doubt we will even get to that phase.

In the meantime a few 'Republicans' who hope in vain to be invited to Georgetown cocktail parties may sink the nomination.

How can she be proven as lying if nothing she says can be demonstrably refuted though? Like that's where I'm at with it. If nothing can be proven then I think it's up to Congress to make their own decision on it, but if I was a Republican Senator I couldn't in good conscience vote for Kavanaugh knowing that he might have done it, you know? Just like nominate someone else who doesn't have a creepy past would be my thinking.

The burden of proof lies with the accuser (unless we are going to revert to 1690s Salem standards of justice)

I really do not feel that any of this is relevant, regardless. He ought to be voted on based on his judicial merits (I personally would have opposed his nomination until he incurred the wrath of the leftist lynch mob); if Ms. Ford wants to take civil action thereafter, she can have her far-fetched claims tested in a court of law.

Not sure why I'm replying to this misogynistic trash line of comments, but:

"We should only judge him based on his judicial merits"
"I started supporting him because a woman said that he did a bad thing when he was 17"

Pick one.

Ideally, there would have been a discussion regarding Kavanaugh's jurisprudence regarding FISA and the PATRIOT Act. However, if the battle lines are going to be drawn based on the unsubstantiated claims of some woman from 36 years ago (against the contradictory statements of her named witnesses), then I am not going to be on the side of baseless character assassination.

And FYI, saying the word "misogynist" is an ad hominem, not rational discourse. Same goes for "racist", "sexist", "homophobe", etc.

[Figueira]

In 1 year this ''beta'' will be be on the Supreme Court, Ford will be in jail for perjury and the leftist keyboard warriors will (still) be working at the local Starbucks .

This assumes there is justice in this world. 50% chance of the first one happening; 0% chance of the second one; I'll grant you the third though.

Did she get proven as lying? I mean maybe if that's the case but last I heard it's still being investigated or whatever. Justice could go either way but nobody knows who is telling the truth.

It wouldn't matter even if she was. Ask James Clapper about the severe repercussions of lying to Congress. Given that Ford's testimony seems conveniently scarce on anything that can be demonstrably refuted (except the eyewitnesses she named, but that is a she-said-everyone-else-said ordeal) I doubt we will even get to that phase.

In the meantime a few 'Republicans' who hope in vain to be invited to Georgetown cocktail parties may sink the nomination.

How can she be proven as lying if nothing she says can be demonstrably refuted though? Like that's where I'm at with it. If nothing can be proven then I think it's up to Congress to make their own decision on it, but if I was a Republican Senator I couldn't in good conscience vote for Kavanaugh knowing that he might have done it, you know? Just like nominate someone else who doesn't have a creepy past would be my thinking.

The burden of proof lies with the accuser (unless we are going to revert to 1690s Salem standards of justice)

I really do not feel that any of this is relevant, regardless. He ought to be voted on based on his judicial merits (I personally would have opposed his nomination until he incurred the wrath of the leftist lynch mob); if Ms. Ford wants to take civil action thereafter, she can have her far-fetched claims tested in a court of law.

Not sure why I'm replying to this misogynistic trash line of comments, but:

"We should only judge him based on his judicial merits"
"I started supporting him because a woman said that he did a bad thing when he was 17"

Pick one.

Ideally, there would have been a discussion regarding Kavanaugh's jurisprudence regarding FISA and the PATRIOT Act. However, if the battle lines are going to be drawn based on the unsubstantiated claims of some woman from 36 years ago (against the contradictory statements of her named witnesses), then I am not going to be on the side of baseless character assassination.

And FYI, saying the word "misogynist" is an ad hominem, not rational discourse. Same goes for "racist", "sexist", "homophobe", etc.

So you don't actually care about jurispredence, and will automatically support any nominee who has been revealed to be an attempted rapist. Got it.