smjjames

Except that we don't know what they looked at or talked to during those other six background checks, and we'll never know because it's all classified (not to mention a ton of private details). I do agree though, if he really did commit something, then the FBI really dropped the ball somewhere. Also, the Democrats are saying that there is evidence of inappropriate behavior in the previous six investigations (why they're bringing that up NOW rather than a whole bunch earlier in the proccess, I don't know), but again, the public can't see the stuff.... @ktchong: The FBI isn't supposed to reach a conclusion in the investigation as it's not a criminal investigation, all they're doing is gathering the facts. And yeah, it's hard to tell whether Kavanaugh actually did it or not as there is no conclusive evidence or not. The best way to find out is to do a full on investigation. Theres plenty of other reasons to oppose Kavanaugh like his judicial views for example. Theres also the lack of allegations from later years. I know there was that rumored one from Colorado, but that one had no names, no return address, no number to call, no way to contact and follow up, plus it's easy enough to check Kavanaughs travel records whether he had been to Colorado at any point in that year.

So FBI finally got their s**t together and conducted a real investigation skipping obvious hoaxes and attention seekers? Good for them. Maybe there is a light in the tunnel for them. Would you call being limited to one week and that they only talked to 10 people a 'real investigation'? Also, you should point your ire at the Republicans, IMO.

Mind if I steal your link for another forum? heh. Anyways, the deadline turned out to be a bit of a fake deadline since on Friday, Mexican President-elect Obrador said he'd accept and sign whatever gets negotiated, https://www.axios.com/nafta-united-states-canada-mexico-negotiations-545a0a49-27aa-4538-8c4d-1098c7b7765b.html Not exactly new news, but Trump has also rebranded it as the US-Mexico-Canada agreement. UMCA or USMCA (or maybe USMECAA) doesn't roll off the tongue in the same way as NAFTA does, but whatever works I guess.

In this particular case, if it's not potential habitat for other endangered or vulnerable species and can't be made into one without significant artificial intervention and maintainance, then yes, I'd say give it with a condition on responsible land management practices. On a side note, since gopher tortoise burrows are mentioned as being essential (though according to the article, they'll take any old hole), I wonder if that area would also be gopher tortoise habitat? Just a thought since the article mentions pine tree harvesting and I wiki'd that and the gopher tortoises best habitat is the longleaf pine ecosystem.

*AHEM* From article: “The main driver of its near extinction was human activity and habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation,” The article doesn't mention why the particular area is no longer suitable for the frogs particular needs, so, we don't know how much land management practices and climate change are to blame, but habitat fragmentation doesn't help either. However, I'd agree that they shouldn't rely on just one charischerestic to define potential habitats (how many other places have 'ephermeral ponds'? Deserts by their very nature can have 'ephemeral ponds', but these aren't desert dwellers) and as the climate changes, they're going to need flexibility as habitat disappears and new habitat appears elsewhere. But since when is the government flexible, right?

I have my own reasons for him being a 'no'. His near-belief (or complete belief maybe. He's said in other statements that put some doubt on that) that the President is above the law and cannot be indicted is the big one and just screams 'Trump chose him because he'd be a vote in Trumps pocket'. While the sexual allegations are a concerning thing, theres the bigger surrounding issue of Kavanaughs credibility in the whole proccess.

@ktchong: There's lots of places besides the US that fire-and-brimstone (meteor salvo really) god would have 'sodom and gommorah'd' if fire-and-brimstone god actually existed. All indications are that the Old Testament god was perhaps once a fire god of some sort, though the whole flood myth thing would be water/rain god association, but that's a theological discussion for some other thread.

Would be funnier/more memetic if the two had different colored jerseys on them. Not sure why the hawk/eagle (looks more like a hawk to me, but what do I know) would be flying in the general direction of the fire, but I suppose that's besides the point of the joke being made.

According to Trump, nobody, they don't have an option B as backup or are considering one. Not like he has a shortage to choose from though.

He was certainly defiant, and undertandably so, but he didn't seem like he came off as an entitled brat. Picked a fight with the Dem questioning in a way he didn't need to though.

You and your Marine imagination. lol Well yeah, they certainly won't be fully satisfied until they're sure with a deep investigation, but will it be enough to move some of the marginal votes? Possibly. And Jeff Flake is the one asking for the investigation, they can only lose one vote and a couple other Republican Senators are on the fence about it. IMO, they should do it for a month, maybe more, to do a deep investigation, but since the Anita Hill one was done for 3 or 4 days, a week seems reasonable in that respect.

The GOP has agreed to do a one week FBI background check https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-senate-committee-vote/h_8d0ff7cfee7a7294b187c03a8336f2d8 , which may or may not satisfy the Democrats.

And now I guess the Republicans are going to ask questions of Kavanaugh themselves? Which doesn't seem consistent. And Lindsey Graham is pissed, understandably at the whole farce (of which his party is also to blame), but I don't know if it'll help or hurt the Republicans there.

He's also clearly attempting to pre-amswer every question he could possibly think of, so many that I wonder if he had some help with the questions, or maybe he just went with what was asked during the practice sessions.

Brett Kavanaugh's Georgetown Preparatory School, where the alleged rapes happened, is in Maryland. Links? I thought most of them happened in Georgetown Prep, one (the second woman) in Yale, and one (the fifth woman, the most recent case and an actual rape in 1989) in Washington. Washington state or D.C? I haven't heard an allegation that came from either 1989 or Washington state.

I thought the other woman, Swetnick, said it happened at the Yale frat house? I don't remember where they said it happened.

Theres one that allegedly took place in Colorado in 1998 and theres another that seems to be secondary reporting in Rhode Island of something happening on a boat and the womans friends later giving Kavanaugh a beating. The FBI really seems like the best place to handle this what with multiple accusations that need cooroboration.

I'd say religion is fair game for questioning, after all, they want to know how that plays into her decisionmaking. I've heard of what you're talking about, though I don't remember what the question was specifically. Theres probably better ways of asking about that which don't come off as an attack on religion.

I think they should nominate Merrick Garland, if they reject him, fine, but give him an actual chance. @ktchong: If you mean before the midterms, they'd have to rush it like nothing else before, probably too fast for even the Republicans.

Point taken. And yeah, I've seen an article or two saying that if this becomes the new norm, it's going to be brutal. Sen. Graham even said during the break that if this becomes the new norm, the Democrats better watch out as far as their nominees. Anyways, Ford is finished with her testimony, it's a 45 min break and Kavanaugh is next.

If you can say that with a straight face I would applaud you. Let's forget that she have nothing to back this up. Let's forget she is represented by creepy porn lawyer. Let's forget she only now reveals knowledge of gang rape ring. Let's forget she claims she saw this multiple times and still was going to those parties. Let's forget all that. Please explain to me what 18 year old college student was doing at 15 year olds parties without using the words: "sexual predator" I was going to respond, but someone else already did: He was 17 and not in college yet. Theres plenty of hypocrisy to go around on both sides of the aisle, I agree there. Why you're singling out Democrats though, I don't know, theres no shortage of misdeeds on the Republican side. The whole thing became a farce the minute they decided to ram the nomination through without doing a full vetting.

Not sure what the bleeped out bit is supposed to be HoonDing... The GOP?

Pfft, Trump is claiming China is meddling in the midterms, without proof. This is exactly the kind of thing that he should have credibility on, but nope, people are just going to believe he is deflecting on Russian meddling. If it's happening on a serious level, then obviously it's a problem, but this looks like just another of Trump's wild accusations.

That seems to be the way he's trying to spin it now. He now says that he meant to be funny, sort of like 'um, I meant to be funny... yeah...' If he was actually trying to make a joke (which the UN General Assembly really isn't the place for), okay, but he was just repeating the rhetoric he uses during rallys where people cheer him on. So, severe misreading of the audience, or not? It's open to interpretation, but still....

What is QQ?