Distortions of the media

Nice deflection as I did answer differently. I am not sure why you are making this a Dem v. GOP but I do agreed it would be shitty tactics. It could be a million different reasons. Maybe an intern put Peterson on the wrong list. Maybe Kennedy wanted some press time to show his constituents how tough he is on confirmation. Maybe they needed more time to nominate and tossed in Peterson. Either way he was not prepared, Kennedy hit it out of the ballpark, and the media should have ignored it or provided an more in-depth report.

 

There are 10 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to the Dem 8 (one of which is Al Franken so really 10 to 7). Peterson in his testimony even referred to answering the Chairman’s questions (Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) which already blows holes in your perceptions of what happened. There is no speculation around why the questions were asked because Sen Kennedy is on tape with why he asked them. Look behind the nominees – there’s people in that room who also saw. Look behind the Sen. More people - sort of blows the whole "your friend is the only one who's there and knows what happened. Once again – it was taped - so anybody with a computer could technically "be there".

That’s a shit ton of “access” that everyone on this board has access to.

Stop making excuses – he fucked up – the people who nominated him fucked up. Learn from it. Move on.

Oh yeah - speaking of access
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/
click on the nominees tab - then click on Petersen's name
click on Committee Questionnaire - his whole document that was answered by Petersen is there (public record - think about those two words for a second).

I found the full interview of Sen Kennedy (skip to 2:00) – can’t wait to hear how Sen Kennedy doesn’t know why he did what he did and has it out for POTUS. . .



Be ticked off all you want - that's not what caused this - being lazy and ticked off - well that's an entirely different story.

Come on dude - I thought all you guys worshiped at the alter of Saint Reagan:

 

Which was addressed in the parentheses of the first sentence. . .your answer was close enough for government work. . .

 

As usual, you're commenting on what you saw on video. That's all you can comment on with any accuracy since you were not in the building when the cameras were not rolling. You have no way of knowing what goes on at those times do you? Get over it, on this issue I do have some insight on those happenings. You, and others, can speculate on anything that you want to but you're not magical. There are a lot of things that go into setting up situations before the media's cameras start. Deal with it.

 

No, no butthurt. Just some irritation at individuals making comments as though those comments were gospel when they have no way of knowing the total picture. It's like many other issues. That magic video makes everything perfectly clear to the world.

 

You're the only one in here acting like he got the gospel from Jesus himself.

 

And some of you are acting like your speculation and guesswork is more accurate than a person that was actively involved. Which one would you consider more viable?

 

Please point out the guesswork specifically.

p.s. Sen. Kennedy was in the room too. I suppose that proves that he agrees with whatever it is you're claiming happened in there?

 

Cool – when you get a chance - post up pics from your passport visa pages – particularly interested in seeing the stamps for Libya (Benghazi) North Korea and Russia. Then post up your work experience in the Obama/Trump administration – specifically the jobs that allowed you front row seats to their and Sec Clinton’s decision making. .then, please document the intimate positioning that gave you national exposure to liberals, their thinking, and how with these sausage making visuals, you can make sweeping judgements that they’re stupid and only want the demise of this country. . .let’s not forget your security clearance, all those one on one interactions with all of our intelligence agencies (and foreign ones). . . also going to need all those years you spent in print and televised media. . .and remember - magic video doesn’t count – only backroom, in the moment experience that can document why you feel you can talk about these subjects with any credibility (I’m guessing you have some crazy travel expenses, need about 1 min of sleep a day and just may be the most plugged in person in the world).

Totally forgot – post the selfie of you at that hearing. . .because if you can’t. . .according to you – your friend should be posting instead of you. . .because. . .you know. . .you were’nt there.

Lets’ see if we can deal with your second main concern: You are correct – I can only comment on the video (and other sources of media) when I wasn’t there. You are incorrect that this cannot be done with any accuracy. Same with the speculation being “magical”. For example – My comments/speculation after seeing that video: “Holy shit that was a train wreck” (correct) “there goes his nomination after that” (correct). “He totally blew that prep – what the fuck was he thinking?” (correct). “no chance this looks good for Trump’s selection process” (correct) “what an idiot” (incorrect). . .well, will you look at that - apparently you don’t need all that back room knowledge in this case to accurately comment/speculate with the really important stuff (like if he was going to get the job or not and some of the reasons why). I get where you're coming from though - in today's age - "common sense" can appear to be "magical".

Here’s a thought - maybe work on adhering to your own standards first before you start spouting off about how wrong everyone is for doing what you do (repeatedly. . .and with far less evidence/access than was available in this particular case - which usually equals far less accuracy in your speculation).

The only thing better would have been you saying everything you said while also stating with incredulous disbelief “why do people have such a hard time getting that conservatives are the superior thinkers?”

Superior indeed. . .way to represent.

 

How many times over the recent years have we gotten into discussions about how inaccurate some stories turned out to be compared to the video that was presented on it? People see a video and immediately decide what the facts are only to later find that the real story differed from what the video showed. There's always a story that cannot be seen through a video.

Guesswork equals speculation. Maybe I should not have added the word "guesswork." I'm really not understanding why, when I relayed information on the hearing, all I heard was argument and immediate speculation on what happened. Am I such a suspected liar that something that I say should be immediately put down? I'm sorry I even brought up the damn subject.

 

Motor, what in the holy hell are you talking about? Passport picture? Libya? Russia,? North Korea? What in the hell does that have to do with the subject at hand? I'm sorry, but the "friend" that I spoke of is someone that I really admire for his knowledge of the law, background in public service and reputation in the legal field so when you, and others, start discounting his observations as though he's one of we "debaters" on this board I tend to get a bit miffed. Like I suggested to Papa, I'm sorry that I brought up the subject. You guys continue to believe your ideas based on a video and we'll all be just fine.

 

Is this the candidate who had never conducted a deposition, never tried a case (or sat second chair), and did not know what a motion in limine was? If that's the one, it's laughable to think he is qualified to sit as a federal judge - who decides disputes at trial (or forces parties to settle). You conduct depositions to learn facts about a case typically before they settle - not conducting a single deposition shows me he has absolutely zero trial experience - even if only 1% of cases are tried. He may be brilliant in his respective field, but he was nominated for a judgeship where his primary (and arguably sole) job would be to try cases.

 

You know, I've got to go with Orvis on this one. When you are looking for information on a new bike purchase, Who do you trust for honest input? A motorcycle mag or a trusted friend with experience? I'll go with the first hand experience.

 

DAMN!!

 

I suspect the guy is top notch but in Orvis' own description he failed to prepare himself well. Based on that alone there are better candidates available. That does not mean he is not talented and likely to continue on building on past accomplishments, likely the opposite will occur. Not everyone can take first in a race.

 

You do realize that you weren't in the room either, right? Because at this point, I'm not convinced that you do.
You've been acting all along like there's some kind of duty to accept your interpretation of what we saw and heard just because you relayed secondhand information. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Take a step back and reread the thread. You're so upset that some weren't as impressed with your coffee buddy as you are that you're taking it personally and getting all dramatic. Who called you a liar? All I see here is people disagree with your opinion. Guess what: that happens a lot in discussions.

 

It's our job:

 

Damn. There be some eye row knee.

 

I know that this response is a bit late but I just saw it so I figured that I would add a line or two on your post.
Papa, what I found kind of irritating is that I was simply relaying information from a person that had a close-up alternative view of those hearings so I kind of figured it might have some credibility besides that of the video provided by the media. Apparently no one had any intention of accepting anything other than video though. I guess when minds have been made up no one can, or will, change. I guess that's just the way things are huh?

 

Does that include your mind too? Or are you special?