Kavanaugh's Face

fradon

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2017
Messages
605
When I saw Kavanaugh's face during the Senate hearings I was struck by how unhealthy his face looked. Something is going on with his health. The color was uneven, blotchy really, and puffy. I am his age and have none of that, but do notice it occasionally in my contemporaries.

alcohol abuse

he's got some estrogen issues too.
 

encerent

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Messages
609
He looks youthful and spirited for a 53 year old. Still got all his hair too.
 

Arnold Grape

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
601
Location
Upstate
When I saw Kavanaugh's face during the Senate hearings I was struck by how unhealthy his face looked. Something is going on with his health. The color was uneven, blotchy really, and puffy. I am his age and have none of that, but do notice it occasionally in my contemporaries.
I have to own up to thinking the same things - he is obviously severely stressed rn, but the appearance struck me as such. If he deployed a carrot salad daily, ate an aspirin occasionally and dipped on pufa, I would say he would look markedly different in a short period of time.
 

JudiBlueHen

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Jun 26, 2017
Messages
482
Long before the allegations arose, when he was first nominated, I thought he appeared a little puffy and pasty in the face. When I first saw him, I mentioned to my husband that he looked unappealing. His face had no expression. It was an odd reaction as I knew absolutely nothing about him.
 

freyasam

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
619
It's as if his face had been constructed entirely of vomit. He was King of the Ralph Club, after all.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Has plenty of hair, I give him that. But the face is not of even tone, so that could be a giveaway to poor health.

But then, if the body prioritizes the organs over the skin, I wouldn't worry too much about his health too much. It just means his rate of metabolism is enough to protect his vital organs and inner health. But the metabolism could be better as there's not enough energy to give his face and his complexion an even tonality.

Taking care of koi, I see very nice skin when they are healthy, from good food and clean water. Take these away, and you have koi with ugly skin. There is energy excess, and the excess is used on the skin, and the skin looks nice. The koi on dirty water will have skin ulcers, and die an early death. The koi on not as dirty and not as clean water will still thrive, but it will not have very saturated colors in the skin, and the colors will not be even - splotchy.

Since men don't wear makeup (well, except those in the theatre arts and newscasting), it's easier to tell from their skin tone. Truly good health will come out from within, as there's no makeup to mask their true health.
 

Waynish

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2016
Messages
2,206
He gave a strong speech. The idea that his face proves his guilt or that he was acting deperately or fake seems like mass hyponsis.
 

Sheik

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
703
His expressions were pretty fake, but that doesn't mean he was lying. I'm pretty confident the court will figure it out. After going back and fourth on the issue, at this point I think I believe him. Which is pretty awesome if I'm right, because Trump will prove yet again how insane the left has become. Jimmy Kimmel, Matt Damon, Jim Carrey, and countless others.... B. T. F. O.
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2018
Messages
46
If you guys would spend even a fraction of the time you use to degrade people that are better-looking than you on science you might get somewhere someday.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
His expressions were pretty fake, but that doesn't mean he was lying. I'm pretty confident the court will figure it out. After going back and fourth on the issue, at this point I think I believe him. Which is pretty awesome if I'm right, because Trump will prove yet again how insane the left has become. Jimmy Kimmel, Matt Damon, Jim Carrey, and countless others.... B. T. F. O.
How did you go back and forth many times? What made you switch from one to another? Would like to hear your perspective. I was pretty set on his innocence, rightly or wrongly I don't know. I just felt this was the Dems' 2nd try after Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, and I felt they had refined their art - get a good book cover (a college professor instead of a girl next door, much less a bimbo) and rehearse the part where everything is a blur, and making it credible by saying she was so so traumatized so any inconsistency in her story could be forgiven. And there were far too many inconsistencies. It was well-orchestrated by her lawyers. They asked for more time to make up their act, giving the excuse she was afraid of flying. The Republicans were weak-kneed. Grassley kept extending the deadline to their advantage, buying them time. And they (Republicans) were on the defensive, as seen in their pick in Rachel Mitchell to question Blasey. And she was too deferential in her questioning. A puffy marshmallow woman to show the world they were being nice to the accuser. Had to take a gay man in Lindsey to knock the ball out of the park. And Trump had to toe the orchestrated optics, given his good feel for wind direction, and say that Blasey was "credible" lest he loses the female vote. But if she weren't a college professor, and a mother, and didn't wear nerdy glasses, she would just be seen as a liberal operative sent on a hit job.

I at first thought they got Rachel Mitchell to put an element of surprise in it to deliver the knockout punch. Thought that her looks would be deceiving, and that she would turn out to be a badass, but I was disappointed. She was a real tasty marshmallow made to be sandwiched between a Hershey and a Graham, to be toasted.

It made me wonder whether her role was well-defined by the Republican-dominated judiciary committee. It seemed not. Flake and the Dems in the judiciary committee may have influenced the choice of using her, and then she was put on a short leash to question Blasey. She handled Blasey with kid gloves, careful not to "further traumatized the already stressed Blasey" and could not question her to rattle her, in the way we see how cross-examination is done on court (as seen on TV). My use of puffy marshmallow to describe her is meant to show how it was that the optics play a big part, as a puffy marshmallow can't be seen to be the tormentor of a frail college professor living through the nightmare of being forced to appear because her anonynity was not protected even as she is so traumatized by something from 36 years ago. But the puffy marshmallow was a through and through marshmallow. Gave the advantage to the liberal Dems and ended up prolonging this unfortunate saga and stage show.
 
Last edited:

Jem Oz

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
405
A bit puffy and pale, but very smooth skin and thick hair. What impacted me more than anything physical was what a decent and loving family man he is. Hope he survives this circus
 

freyasam

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
619
You people are hilarious. Several of his classmates are saying that he lied under oath about his HS and college days and was a violent drunk. Everyone knows he lied tothe Senate about several things in the hearing, including Renate Alumni and devil's triangle. That alone is enough to stop his confirmation. And you still think he's a decent man and deserves to be on the Supreme Court for the rest of his days. it's almost as if people like him simply because he is fighting against a sexual assault allegation.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
You people are hilarious. Several of his classmates are saying that he lied under oath about his HS and college days and was a violent drunk. Everyone knows he lied tothe Senate about several things in the hearing, including Renate Alumni and devil's triangle. That alone is enough to stop his confirmation. And you still think he's a decent man and deserves to be on the Supreme Court for the rest of his days. it's almost as if people like him simply because he is fighting against a sexual assault allegation.
The floodgates are open and this becomes a mess. By floodgates I mean it's about scrutinizing everything he said and finding someone to counter him to discredit him. And what do you know? Another professor. Another R E S P I C T A B L E person.
And another fool in this forum buying in.
The Dems play a good game. When it comes to lying and manufacturing stories they have the edge. This is after all the party of Keith Ellison and Bill Clinton the Saint of Liberals.
 

freyasam

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
619
The floodgates are open and this becomes a mess. By floodgates I mean it's about scrutinizing everything he said and finding someone to counter him to discredit him. And what do you know? Another professor. Another R E S P I C T A B L E person.
And another fool in this forum buying in.
The Dems play a good game. When it comes to lying and manufacturing stories they have the edge. This is after all the party of Keith Ellison and Bill Clinton the Saint of Liberals.

You think it's okay to appoint someone to the highest court in the land, and you don't think he deserves to be scrutinized. You think it's OK for a Supreme Court justice to bend the truth and lie under oath. You're buying into the culture wars and supporting him for no other reason than he's a favorite of Trump and Republicans, and that he's denying sexual assault allegations. And you're calling me a fool.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
You think it's okay to appoint someone to the highest court in the land, and you don't think he deserves to be scrutinized. And you're calling me a fool.
He's being scrutinized. You jump at any hearsay as long as it vindicates your judgment of him. There is no proof even and you're already set. Do you condemn when no proof is given? And you don't think you're a fool? You just follow your lord and master Hirono.

Who is the one accused? Where is the proof? When there is none, he is innocent. What world or what country do you live in?

I just wish you were the accused in a murder trial and hope you are treated the same way.
 
Last edited:

freyasam

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
619
1qqq
He's being scrutinized. You jump at any hearsay as long as it vindicates your judgment of him. There is no proof even and you're already set. Do you condemn when no proof is given? And you don't think you're a fool? You just follow your lord and master Hirono.

Who is the one accused? Where is the proof? When there is none, he is innocent. What world or what country do you live in?

I just wish you were the accused in a murder trial and hope you are treated the same way.

That's a lot of assumptions. You don't know me or my political beliefs. You don't seem to grasp the concept that every SCOTUS is scrutinized, or should be.

And I see you chose to ignore the points about him lying about several issues OTHER THAN the sexual assault. So I guess you're swallowing the line about Devil's Triangle being a drinking game?? Renate Dolphin herself said she was horrified by "Renate Alumni." Yet you still believe that it was simply a "sign of our respect for her?'

So because I don't think a lying unhinged drunk should be on the SCOTUS, you would like me to be falsely accused of murder?? That's pretty harsh. And they call women hysterical.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom