Lydiard is God wrote:
SJWs always lie. SJWs always double down. SJWs always project. Kavanaugh fought back insread of bending over and taking it up the ass.
Trump has provided the template to defeat leftardation. Get back in their face with fiery rhetoric and essentially tell the left to go f*ck themselves.
It's quite amazing watching conservative leaders, even the ones who didn't like Trump, finally grow a pair.
Would never happen under a Jeb administration.
Flagpole wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
Meh. He’s surely qualified. From a judicial standpoint probably the most qualified conservative leaning judge out there. He’s just a conservative leaning judge taking over for another conservative leaning judge. I just think this will surely mobilize the woman vote in the midterms, as well as 2020, in a way the GOP doesn’t want. It will be interesting to see if this affects Collins in 2020. She’s won around 60% of the vote in each of her elections so she’s very likely safe.
Alan
His qualifications for me were never the issue. If I were a Senator, I would be a Democrat Senator and would not have voted for him based on some of his views, but he is qualified based on experience and education. I say his demeanor in the hearing should have been disqualifying, and it is beyond odd that the FBI wouldn't do an investigation of all the accusations.
There was a time when all of us thought Bill Cosby couldn't have raped all those people too.
The FBI investigated all the CREDIBLE accusations.
Facts checkered wrote:
flaggy2.0 wrote:
the fallacies never end
Don’t speak for me.
I wait until the FACTS come to light and get my information from more than one source, unlike you.
I use my head, not my heart.
Apparently my "heart" is worth more than your "head". Sad!
Objective decisions`, wrote:
Senate discussion - Live wrote:
Kamala Harris is Awesome. She speaks well, and I like her a lot.
[quote]Ghost of Igloi wrote:
She needs voters like you.
Indeed, she has me, and many other smart people too.
Being “smart” and having common sense are not the same.
falsly ? wrote:
celery wrote:
So your basic argument is that someone can be falsely accused of ....
Your logic is moronic.
Are you saying Kavanuagh was not falsely accused? How do you know? Do you have evidence that the accusations were true?
If you don't need evidence for an accusation to be true, then I celery am officially accusing whoever you are of molesting little children. Can't prove me wrong? Ok, the allegation is not false then. You are credibly accused of pedophilia. Now, I bet you're going to deny it, but that's just what a pedophile would do.
Govt man wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
His qualifications for me were never the issue. If I were a Senator, I would be a Democrat Senator and would not have voted for him based on some of his views, but he is qualified based on experience and education. I say his demeanor in the hearing should have been disqualifying, and it is beyond odd that the FBI wouldn't do an investigation of all the accusations.
There was a time when all of us thought Bill Cosby couldn't have raped all those people too.
The FBI investigated all the CREDIBLE accusations.
Flagpole, do you believe Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ford, Ramierez, Swetnick, and any Avenetti’s other accuser?
celery wrote:
falsly ? wrote:
Your logic is moronic.
Are you saying Kavanuagh was not falsely accused? How do you know? Do you have evidence that the accusations were true?
If you don't need evidence for an accusation to be true, then I celery am officially accusing whoever you are of molesting little children. Can't prove me wrong? Ok, the allegation is not false then. You are credibly accused of pedophilia. Now, I bet you're going to deny it, but that's just what a pedophile would do.
And probably get angry about it. That's bad too.
Brett Kavanaugh Will Be Late wrote:
Repukes R You wrote:
Trumper: "i'm not reading it because rush limbaugh is always right"
the difference being that if i don't read it i can't talk about the content. ....
EXACTLY. You failed to read the link.
2 points wrote:
just the facts ma'am wrote:
.... the R lead being 12 points ...
Actual 2 points. It is easy to see why you added a 1.
Nah, I meant 12 points. she’s down 12 in the latest polls.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/north-dakota/I think Flagpole’s shortsightedness on this topic just demonstrates how people who get their information from one source (in this case, CNN) can be easily duped into believing the narrative presented.
He clearly one heard a portion of the information and facts on this subject.
This goes for people who just watch Fox, read just the NYC, etc. too.
Common man wrote:
I think Flagpole’s shortsightedness on this topic just demonstrates how people who get their information from one source (in this case, CNN) can be easily duped into believing the narrative presented.
He clearly one heard a portion of the information and facts on this subject.
This goes for people who just watch Fox, read just the NYC, etc. too.
True. It’s scary that we have people like this casting votes when they only have a partial, biased view of the facts.
Common man wrote:
I think Flagpole’s shortsightedness on this topic just demonstrates how people who get their information from one source (in this case, CNN) can be easily duped into believing the narrative presented.
He clearly one heard a portion of the information and facts on this subject.
This goes for people who just watch Fox, read just the NYC, etc. too.
Flagpole will go back to RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA topic.
really? really? wrote:
Of all the stupid rhetoric which has been slung around on multiple sides, one of the most egregious is that idea that Brett Kavanaugh's life is going to be ruined if he is not confirmed to the Supreme Court. I'm sure it would be personally disappointing but he would go back to being a highly compensated judge on the second most important court in the U.S. His life is not going to be ruined.
Please stop it.
celery wrote:
So your basic argument is that someone can be falsely accused of all sorts of crimes with no evidence to back up the allegation, and if the accused person shows any frustration and emotion at being falsely accused, their life should still be ruined just because the allegations exist, even though there is zero evidence supporting the allegation. So in other words; if she floats, she's a witch; if she sinks, she was innocent.
Your logic is moronic.
He's been accused of attempted rape and murder ("I thought he would accidentally kill me" --in Ford's mousy up-speak voice). If people take these accusations seriously, he can't just go back to being a judge on the DC court. The Dems raised the stakes so high that it was basically make or break for Kavanuagh. This wasn't just joking about a pubic hair in a coke. The Dems where using full scale political terrorist tactics here. If you don't get what the big deal was, you weren't paying attention.
Further, if people took this accusation seriously and it prevented him from getting the job, then it means anyone can be accused of anything WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE at anytime without any protection of due process, and the mere presence of the accusation can accomplish it's purpose.
Here's an analogy. Let's say you are applying for a promotion at work. But then a female coworker says that 2 years ago you followed her into the restroom and groped her and forcibly kissed her. She says 2 men and a woman where in the hallway and saw you when you followed her into the restroom. She can't remember the exact date, but she knows it happened about 2 years ago. Unfortunately, your companies' security camera footage is only stored for 1 year, so there's no way to confirm or disprove her allegation. Also, the 2 men and 1 woman that she named as seeing you follow her into the restroom all say they don't remember seeing this incident at all. These 3 people are all called into HR and vow repeatedly that they never saw this happen. And the woman is a friend of the accuser. Further, let's say the accuser has already indicated, before the allegation was made, that she did not like you. Further, let's say this allegation came only after your company had had a staff meeting where they all talked about you getting the promotion, and the accuser did not make the accusation at that time, but only talked privately with a few of her friends about making the accusation.
In this situation, with this uncorroborated allegation, if your bosses decided to pass you over for the promotion, it would be a monumental injustice. Further, if they passed you over for the promotion because they believed the accuser, it would also mean they have to take disciplinary action against you, most likely firing you. And worst of all, it could set a precedent in your company that anyone can get anyone else fired as long as they make up a story that is impossible to disprove.
Of course my analogy is not a perfect match to Kavanagh's situation, no analogy is perfect. But it's pretty close to the same level of lack of supporting evidence, and the consequences to the accused and the institution, if it was believed.
Thisthreadisridiculous wrote:
Common man wrote:
I think Flagpole’s shortsightedness on this topic just demonstrates how people who get their information from one source (in this case, CNN) can be easily duped into believing the narrative presented.
He clearly one heard a portion of the information and facts on this subject.
This goes for people who just watch Fox, read just the NYC, etc. too.
Flagpole will go back to RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA topic.
Correction: Clownpole...
Thisthreadisridiculous wrote:
Common man wrote:
I think Flagpole’s shortsightedness on this topic just demonstrates how people who get their information from one source (in this case, CNN) can be easily duped into believing the narrative presented.
He clearly one heard a portion of the information and facts on this subject.
This goes for people who just watch Fox, read just the NYC, etc. too.
Flagpole will go back to RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA topic.
According to the current liberal narrative, the FBI is back to being a bunch of incompetent boobs, so does that make the Russia investigation not legit? FFFFFFlagpole has a dilemma.
Just in case someone forgets...
1. The Senate will add a few more Republicans.
2. The Dems will take the House.
3. In 2020 a Dem will win the presidency.
And thus balance is restored.....
Alan
FFFFFOUR Pinocchios wrote:
Thisthreadisridiculous wrote:
Flagpole will go back to RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA topic.
According to the current liberal narrative, the FBI is back to being a bunch of incompetent boobs, so does that make the Russia investigation not legit? FFFFFFlagpole has a dilemma.
It will always be:
Mueller never
Clownpole forever
just the facts ma’am wrote:
2 points wrote:
Actual 2 points. It is easy to see why you added a 1.
Nah, I meant 12 points. she’s down 12 in the latest polls.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/north-dakota/
^ Cherry picked data point = Fox News R+12.
Reality is 48.1 : 51.9
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/north-dakota/Oh really`,` wrote:
L L wrote:
Manchin may vote for him simply to be re-elected.
I think he is smarter than that, but you're not.
Looks like Manchin isn’t smarter than that.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
I was prepared to vote Democrat at the mid-terms
LOL!
No you weren't.