Official Brett Kavanaugh confirmation thread

1 lap 2 soon wrote:

poor form lad wrote:

He's gonna be there. Murkoswki will vote yes. 52.

No. And No. And 50. Get your numbers right.

Munchin changes his mind and Barfffff Kavanaugh is DONE.

Murkowski is not flipping.

How quick are you able to go from denial to acceptance? Keep up.

NO democrat can ever take the moral highgroud when they support ted kennedy fdr BJ clinton jfk wallace the confederates 'kkk bird' etc etc etc etc

Repukes R You wrote:

i know what you are wrote:

i read it. did you?

Several hours later. Does not count.

count for what? do you know how to qualify your thoughts?

i know what you are wrote:

count for what?

^ failed to read the link. Whines. Kicks. Screams. And turns red.

I'm certainly not saying this happened, but what if she lied about it because she thought Roe v Wade was in danger? Any feminists out there care to weigh in on the morality of this scenario (from the feminist viewpoint, not in general, clearly that would be immoral)

Poster #959 wrote:

I'm certainly not saying this happened, but what if she lied about it because she thought Roe v Wade was in danger? Any feminists out there care to weigh in on the morality of this scenario (from the feminist viewpoint, not in general, clearly that would be immoral)

All’s fair in love and war. Except if white men do it.

So 11 months wasn’t enough time to confirm Garland...but we get BK in 4?

Alan

More lies by Democrats wrote:

Still making stuff up wrote:

More lies by Republicans.

Here ya go Democrats.

You rip Republicans on how they vote yet here's your party. Oh wait, that was so long ago so we can justify it by saying...it was so long ago.

Liberals lie and look what your own party did to a person who was 100% guilty. Now you say how can a Republican do this or that, where are their morals.

Go down 3 short paragraphs from the top.

"no member of his own Democratic Party voted guilty on either charge. Clinton, like Johnson a century earlier, was acquitted on all charges."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

Yep, not one Democrat voted against Bill Clinton after they knew what he did and how much he lied. Unbelievable, and now you're all b*tch*ing. You get what you dish out times 10. Suck it!

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Not true wrote:

Flagpole never said he would not be confirmed.

Liar. Flagpole said "he will not be confirmed as I said...I told you so"

Try again.

Ummmm, that’s is NOT what he said.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Objective decisions`, wrote:

Indeed, she has me, and many other smart people too.

Being “smart” and having common sense are not the same.

Don't fret about it, as you'll never be either of them.

Confirmed and rightly so wrote:

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/10/05/balsey-fords-camp-tampered-with-witnesses/

Wow, some fairly damning stuff in there if it's true, and it looks to be.

This is going to kick on long after BK is confirmed, so lots of sleepless nights for certain people, dunno why they don't just come clean now and try and strike a deal.

Pink P*ssy Hat wrote:

Poster #959 wrote:

I'm certainly not saying this happened, but what if she lied about it because she thought Roe v Wade was in danger? Any feminists out there care to weigh in on the morality of this scenario (from the feminist viewpoint, not in general, clearly that would be immoral)

All’s fair in love and war. Except if white men do it.

You mean like OJ Simpson? Ooops, you scr@wed up there ole fella!;).

FFFFFOUR Pinocchios wrote:

1 lap 2 soon wrote:

One lap too soon.

PS The number is 50. #51 is not there and cannot vote by proxy. Must be on the Senate floor to vote. No aways allowed.

51 Repubs

-1 Repub not there

= 50 Repubs

- 1 Repub flipper (Murkowski)

= 49 Repubs yes

+1 Dem flipper (Mnuchin)

= 50 claimed votes of yes

Out of curiosity, are you aware of the Vice President’s role in The United States Senate?

VP can only break ties if all Senators vote.

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

So 11 months wasn’t enough time to confirm Garland...but we get BK in 4?

Alan

You're getting desperate now haha.

Objective decisions`, wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Being “smart” and having common sense are not the same.

Don't fret about it, as you'll never be either of them.

Says the handle changer coward himself.

Poster #959 wrote:

I'm certainly not saying this happened, but what if she lied about it because she thought Roe v Wade was in danger? Any feminists out there care to weigh in on the morality of this scenario (from the feminist viewpoint, not in general, clearly that would be immoral)

I'm not saying he isn't, but what if Trump isn't really the President, and is just acting like it because he felt in danger of his hair falling out? Any Republicans care to weigh in on the morality of this scenario (from the white rapist's viewpoint, not in general, as clearly that would be immoral).

Hopefully the SJW's and their kind won't be bleating for ever about BK getting confirmed, like they have been about HRC not winning, hopefully they'll just move on to their latest exercise in futility.

Runningart2004 wrote:

So 11 months wasn’t enough time to confirm Garland...but we get BK in 4?

Alan

Elections have consequences!

Runningart2004 wrote:

VP can only break ties if all Senators vote.

Noted.