• 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!

In the words of Brett Kavanaugh

Mason66 said:
as Kavanaugh made statements that it is OK for Trump tp lie to the American public?
H
Click to expand...

Insofar as you've posed the fragmented question -- you didn't actually write a complete sentence -- thus making the notion of "okayness" your conjuration, you answer it.

I'm not shy. Had I cared to, in my OP, share a qualitative remark about the "okayness" of Trump's lying to the American public, or in some way thought doing so apropos to my opening post, I would have. Frankly, I think Kavanaugh's remarks have nothing to do with the "okayness" of Trump's remarks or behavior. Brett's remarks have only to do with what Brett thought at the time he wrote them.
 
Xelor said:
Insofar as you've posed the question, thus making the notion of "okayness" your conjuration, you answer it.

I'm not shy. Had I cared to, in my OP, share a qualitative remark about the "okayness" of Trump's lying to the American public, or in some way thought doing so apropos to my opening post, I would have.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with Trump.

You seem to be saying that Kavanaugh is OK with Trump lying to the public but wasn't OK with Clinton doing it.

If that wasn't the reason for the OP, what was?
 
Xelor said:
How droll....



Oh, so we should infer that in your mind, one's being not the POTUS mollifies the opprobrium, satyriasis, licentiousness attendant to adultery?

Philandering is unique to neither man. Moreover, Trump has with vigor undreamt of by any before him, and to quote Brett, "lied to aides, ...lied to the American people, ...[and] tried to disgrace [the investigator and his office], with a sustained propaganda campaign that would make Nixon blush."
Click to expand...

That's what Kavanaugh said. This is a thread about Kavanaugh's reaction to Clinton's sexual misconduct while president, is it not?
Xelor said:
In 1998, Brett Kavanaugh wrote of Bill Clinton whom Brett was investigating as part of the Starr inquiry:

The President has disgraced his Office, the legal system, and the American people by having sex with a 22-year-old intern and turning her life into a shambles — callous and disgusting behaviour that has somehow gotten lost in the shuffle....He has lied to aides. He has lied to the American people. He has tried to disgrace you [Ken Starr] and this office with a sustained propaganda campaign that would make Nixon blush.

He should be forced to account for that and defend his actions. [emboldening is Kavanaugh's]...In my view, given what we know, the interests of the Office of the President would be best served by gathering the full facts regarding the actions of this President so that Congress can decide whether the interests of the Presidency would be best served by having a new President. More to the point: Aren't we failing to fulfill our duty to the American people if we willingly "conspire" with the President in an effort to conceal the true nature of his acts?
​

Click the link above to read the whole memo.


Note:

  • Kavanaugh remarks that he wanted Clinton to agree to perjury. I have no idea of how Clinton would do so for Clinton didn't testify before the grand jury until August 17 (the questions Kavanaugh suggested are for that testimony) and the letter was written on the 15th.

    As Trumpkins and myriad conservative editorialists have repeatedly noted, "it's not a crime to lie to the American people."

    Well, they're right, it's not a crime, but it is, as Brett noted, reprehensible.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Mason66 said:
This has nothing to do with Trump.

You seem to be saying that Kavanaugh is OK with Trump lying to the public but wasn't OK with Clinton doing it.

If that wasn't the reason for the OP, what was?
Click to expand...

The point of the OP was to remind readers of some of Brett Kavanaugh's thoughts from his days on the Ken Starr's team of investigators who initially were charged with investigating to determine whether Clinton committed criminal acts in connection with "Whitewater," found nothing, closed the investigation and then, upon learning of a potentially embarrassing adulterous affair between Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, reopened it, and with the pretext of feigned indignation, created a scandal out of fellatio.
 
cabse5 said:
That's what Kavanaugh said. This is a thread about Kavanaugh's reaction to Clinton's sexual misconduct while president, is it not?
Click to expand...

It is not.

It is about Kavanaugh's clearly expressed thoughts about specific behaviors and, as noted in the "Note" section of the OP, it is tacitly about the ideological, philosophical and existential incoherence exhibited by Trumpkins and as illustrated by Kavanaugh's words and current sentiments Trump and his acolytes utter vis-a-vis the investigation into Trump's comportment.
 
Xelor said:
It is about Kavanaugh's clearly expressed thoughts about specific behaviors and, as noted in the "Note" section of the OP, it is tacitly about the ideological, philosophical and existential incoherence exhibited by Trumpkins.
Click to expand...

It's your attempt to extrapolate Trump's sexual appetites with Clinton's and your desire to make it look like Kavanaugh would be disapproving of Trump's behavior like Clinton's.
Riddle me this: If, in your opinion, Kavanaugh is just as disgusted with the sexual behaviors of Trump as Clinton, why is Kavanaugh allowing himself to be touted by Trump as the next SCOTUS nominee?
 
cabse5 said:
It's your attempt to extrapolate Trump's sexual appetites with Clinton's and your desire to make it look like Kavanaugh would be disapproving of Trump's behavior like Clinton's.
Riddle me this: If, in your opinion, Kavanaugh is just as disgusted with the sexual behaviors of Trump as Clinton, why is Kavanaugh allowing himself to be touted by Trump as the next SCOTUS nominee?
Click to expand...
Again, how droll....

Blue:
That's a question you need to ask Brett, not me.

Red:
  1. I can assure you that "it's" not at all my "attempt to extrapolate Trump's sexual appetites with Clinton's" and "to make it look like Kavanaugh would be disapproving of Trump's behavior like Clinton's." I've already stated what the OP/thread is about.
  2. Before you deign to postulate about others' motives, you should learn first to abjure inefficiently using words you don't comprehend and verbal moods and voices you've not mastered. You should because correctly using the language to express one's thoughts is more important than is using advanced elements and styles the language offers. Better to use simple words and syntaxes one understands and has master than to use "advanced" diction and syntax one does not.
    • "Extrapolate," as a transitive verb, is accompanied by "to" or "from," not "with."
    • "Would be disapproving" is among the, if not the, most awkward ways available -- passive and subjunctive -- to express your "red" thoughts. To wit, "It's your equating Trump and Clinton's lechery and, in turn, impling Kavanaugh finds Trump as revulsive as he deemed Clinton" is one of the several far more efficient ways to convey your "red" ideas.
      • You need not take my word for it. Use a readability scorer to compare yours and my sentences:
        • Your inefficient, clumsily formed and inaptly worded sentence:
          • "It's your attempt to extrapolate Trump's sexual appetites with Clinton's and your desire to make it look like Kavanaugh would be disapproving of Trump's behavior like Clinton's."
            • 27 words; "16th" grade reading level
        • My alternative sentence:
          • "It's your equating Trump and Clinton's lechery and, then, implying Kavanaugh finds Trump as revulsive as he deemed Clinton."
            • 19 words; "14th" grade reading level; 30% shorter with exactly the same quantity and quality of meaning.
  3. By all means, use whatever diction and syntax suits you, but if you opt to use language concomitant with a high school graduate's or higher reading level, please don't butcher the language. Rest assured that be your ideas sound/cogent and coherently organized and expressed, it differs not to me whether your diction and syntax is that of an 8th or "18th" grader.

    One of the reasons I write as I do is that it allows me to include more, more nuanced and more specific ideas into the same or fewer quantity of words than can be expressed with elementary diction and syntax. Be that as it may, were the limit of my linguistic mastery elementary, that'd be the style I use.
 
The Kavanaugh nomination is going to do what it is going to do.

I think the ad spot with the "school teacher" claiming she is not involved in politics while making a promo for .........Kavanaugh is hilarious. If we had a brain in this country that spot would have been dead as soon as those words left her mouth.

I don't know what worries me more. Is is that an actual school teacher teaching kids thinks she is not involved in politics making that promo? Is it that we are so cement headed in this country that somebody in marketing political campaigns thought they could get away with that? Is she actually an actress playing a school teacher in that spot? That would at least be more acceptable than her being a real school teacher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom