• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feingold: 'Clear Evidence' Kavanaugh Lied Under Oath!

ajn678 said:
Anyone that posts anything from Huff Po is automatically disqualified from ever being seen as someone worth engaging with.
Click to expand...

The Article is written by ex Senator Russ Feingold

Your rebuttal is incompetent. A competent rebuttal would indicate the fallaciousness of Feingold's assertions and back it up which you clearly have not done
 
TurtleDude said:
you have been saying that for months, That you oppose him is a major reason why I hope he is seated.
Click to expand...

Oh, well, now there's a good reason to prefer someone be seated on the SCOTUS......NOT!!
 
OscarLevant said:
The Article is written by ex Senator Russ Feingold

Your rebuttal is incompetent. A competent rebuttal would indicate the fallaciousness of Feingold's assertions and back it up which you clearly have not done
Click to expand...

I had a couple of issues with his article:
#1 He claims that Kavanaugh lied about not being a part of Pickering's 2001 nomination and his evidence is emails that show Kavanaugh was the primary handler of the eventual 2003 renomination of Pickering. (While looking this up, I found something interesting in the fact that Democrats effectively tried to give him the Garland treatment by using the filibuster to prevent an up or down vote). Just because he was involved in the 2nd nomination, it doesn't mean he was involved with the first.

2. I didn't see the hearing so I don't know the exact context but going from what was written it appears that he asked Kavanaugh was he involved in the hacking which he denied. The fact that emails were sent to him doesn't mean he was involved in the hacking of the senators email. I would need to see the video of the questioning of Kavanaugh to understand the context and line of questioning.
 
OscarLevant said:
The Article is written by ex Senator Russ Feingold

Your rebuttal is incompetent. A competent rebuttal would indicate the fallaciousness of Feingold's assertions and back it up which you clearly have not done
Click to expand...

You are asking for a rebuttal of an opinion article. An opinion is not rebutted, it is disagreed with by a contrary opinion.
 
OscarLevant said:
No way in hell does Kavanaugh deserve a seat on the Supreme Court

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ld-kavanaugh-lies_us_5ba020f6e4b013b0977defff
Click to expand...

While I tend to agree that Kavanaugh has not exactly been 100% truthful... Feingold's opinion on Kavanaugh was determined before he was even named, which is to say it was unlikely Democrats would ever vote for any nomination to the Supreme Court that Trump came up with.

The whole piece written for HuffPo is an opinion that speaks to those who also already oppose Kavanaugh as this ex-Senator does, if not before he was named certainly now that sexual assault allegations have come out against Kavanaugh.

Politics today... and the mess it has become.
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
The Article is written by ex Senator Russ Feingold

Your rebuttal is incompetent. A competent rebuttal would indicate the fallaciousness of Feingold's assertions and back it up which you clearly have not done
Click to expand...

Guess there's a reason for being "ex".
 
OscarLevant said:
No way in hell does Kavanaugh deserve a seat on the Supreme Court

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ld-kavanaugh-lies_us_5ba020f6e4b013b0977defff
Click to expand...

More leftist loons are coming out of their closets to try to derail the Kavanaugh nomination. Of course dedicated leftist liars for their leftist cause will call good men liars if that gains them traction in keeping those good men from becoming effective servants in helping deliver America from ungodly godless hedonism.
 
Feingold: 'Clear Evidence' Kavanaugh Lied Under Oath!
Click to expand...

Well, if there is "evidence", then prosecute....otherwise...:shrug:
 
OscarLevant said:
No way in hell does Kavanaugh deserve a seat on the Supreme Court

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ld-kavanaugh-lies_us_5ba020f6e4b013b0977defff
Click to expand...

Not from the Huffington Post piece written by Russ Feingold (that's quite a a two-fer) but from the POLITICO piece Feingold referenced ...

"Nothing in the emails directly contradicts Kavanaugh’s testimony before the Senate when he was a circuit court nominee. Democrats say the documents show Kavanaugh was less than forthcoming about his role in the Pickering confirmation, though the judge's defenders say he was truthful and not obligated to elaborate."​

And the same thing happened with Feingold's other accusation about stolen documents. This time referencing the NYT ...

"Judge Kavanaugh reiterated that he had no knowledge that Mr. Miranda had infiltrated Democratic files, saying he likely assumed that the Republican staff was getting information from friends who were Democratic staff members and nothing had raised red flags at the time."​

Now why would Feingold not just include that relevant text in his own piece?

Russ Feingold and The Huffington Post ...
th
 
Feingold is entitled to his opinion like everyone else.
 
OscarLevant said:
The Article is written by ex Senator Russ Feingold

Your rebuttal is incompetent. A competent rebuttal would indicate the fallaciousness of Feingold's assertions and back it up which you clearly have not done
Click to expand...

My initial post still stands. Anyone that would willingly use a Huff Po piece as proof of anything is at best ignorant.
 
OscarLevant said:
The Article is written by ex Senator Russ Feingold

Your rebuttal is incompetent. A competent rebuttal would indicate the fallaciousness of Feingold's assertions and back it up which you clearly have not done
Click to expand...
feingold is a liberal hack of a senator. He lied because i say he lied.

this is what we call a circular logic fallacy. I am right because i say i am right.
Feingold's opinion of whether he lied or not is irrelevant.

feingold is far from bias or judging whether someone lied.
PS lying never has barred someone from office.
otherwise feingold would have never been able to be elected.

Neither would anyone else.

Nothing in the emails directly contradicts Kavanaugh’s testimony before the Senate when he was a circuit court nominee.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/12/kavanaugh-emails-controversial-nomination-817798

so why is feingold lying?

hmmm interesting isn't it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom