President Donald J. Trump's Supreme Court Associate Justice Kavanaugh

[GG]

1 minute ago, Cinga said:

And with the increase in the numbers of violent progressives out there, we continue a decent into mob rule... Isn't it ironic how they call Republicans "NAZI", but it is actually them who define fascism?

But the more violent they become, the more it humors me that in fact they support gun control...

 

 

They're not even smart enough to abandon Nazi and Communist symbols

[meazza]

11 minutes ago, GG said:

 

They're not even smart enough to abandon Nazi and Communist symbols

 

Because no one will notice. 

[Nanker]

42 minutes ago, Buddy Hix said:

I’m too lazy to search through 100 pages of this thread, but why are Trumpers against an FBI investigation?

 

Seems like the best way to get to the bottom of this.

I’ll try. 

First, the FBI doesn’t have jurisdiction. Local authorities should be contacted to investigate. But there is not enough information from the complaint to establish the time, place, persons involved in the alleged incident. The statute of limitations passed about 20 years ago. 

 

Senator DiFi sat on the allegation until after the hearings were concluded. So, being unable to find anything on Kavanaugh that would derail his confirmation, they pull the pin on this sleaze grenade. 

 

Dems hope to run out the clock on his confirmation to push it past the midterms when they hope to retake control of Congress and the Senate. If that happens, they will stall all of his appointments and we’ll have an 8 person bench of Supremes.

 

In part this is their payback for the Republican’s treatment of Garland a “moderate” whom B. O. Nominated to replace the staunch conservative Anton Scalia. In other words it’s a high stakes pissing contest. 

 

Finally, if an FBI investigation were completed, Uncle Joe gives the answer key to that final exam in the throwback video below. Please watch it to the end. 

14 hours ago, LABillzFan said:

 

I think this is what they call rhetorical flourish.

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by Nanker

[PearlHowardman]

9 minutes ago, Nanker said:

Senator DiFi sat on the allegation until after the hearings were concluded. So, being unable to find anything on Kavanaugh that would derail his confirmation, they pull the pin on this sleaze grenade. 

 

Hoax

[Teddy KGB]

Can someone block Tibs and Pearl from mucking up the thread ? 

 

 

[Tiberius]

Let's hope this makes ND a safe Dem seat 

 

Quote

The attack-ads against this Republican write themselves. “Rep. Kevin Cramer, the Republican nominee for Senate in North Dakota, questioned whether the allegation of sexual assault against Judge Brett Kavanaugh would be disqualifying for his Supreme Court nomination even if it were true. . . . ‘Even if it’s all true, does it disqualify him? It certainly means that he did something really bad 36 years ago, but does it disqualify him from the Supreme Court?’ Cramer asked.” I’d like to think North Dakota voters think sexual assault and lying about it are disqualifying.

 

2 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said:

Can someone block Tibs and Pearl from mucking up the thread ? 

 

 

You want me banned? For what? Only lap dogs of the right should be allowed? 

 

Are you as physically weak as you are mentally weak? Little 

[boyst]

7 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said:

Can someone block Tibs and Pearl from mucking up the thread ? 

 

 

Just ignore the her.

[Teddy KGB]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Let's hope this makes ND a safe Dem seat 

 

 

You want me banned? For what? Only lap dogs of the right should be allowed? 

 

Are you as physically weak as you are mentally weak? Little 

 

Because you’re a repetitive bore much like Pearl.   

 

As far as physically goes.    I’m big enough to stuff your ass in one of those washing machines ???

[boyst]

3 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said:

 

Because you’re a repetitive bore much like Pearl.   

 

As far as physically goes.    I’m big enough to stuff your ass in one of those washing machines ???

But how far can you throw a spear?

[Doc]

She won't testify tomorrow.  She's got no case but having old white men "attack" her by asking questions looks real bad for R's.  With a female lawyer asking the questions, the chicanery is circumvented.

[DC Tom]

12 hours ago, GG said:

 

Can someone please explain why some women take offense when men are over-protective, yet have no problem claiming that a woman will be intimidated at a hearing?   Wouldn't Kavanaugh also be intimidated at the same hearing?

 

Because they want us to believe women lack agency.

 

That's it, no other reason.  You look at every tenet of modern feminism, and it's predicted on anti-feminist beliefs that women are helpless and dependent.  It's such a pervasive belief thay meeting an actual feminist, who believes that women do have agency, is both rare and eye-opening.

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

She won't testify tomorrow.  She's got no case but having old white men "attack" her by asking questions looks real bad for R's.  With a female lawyer asking the questions, the chicanery is circumvented.

Quote

 

But speaking generally, she said that the “largest misconception is that ‘stranger danger’ is the rule rather than the fairly rare exception.”

About 90 to 95 percent of victims, she said, “know the person who is offending against them.”

She also listed a second misconception: “People think that children would tell right away and that they would tell everything that happened to them. In reality children often keep this secret for years, sometimes into their adulthood, sometimes forever.”

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/us/rachel-mitchell-bio-facts.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

She seems like a serious professional. And she just answered stupid Trump's question there 

[Nanker]

19 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Because they want us to believe women lack agency.

 

That's it, no other reason.  You look at every tenet of modern feminism, and it's predicted on anti-feminist beliefs that women are helpless and dependent.  It's such a pervasive belief thay meeting an actual feminist, who believes that women do have agency, is both rare and eye-opening.

True. I think their deeply held belief is that females are the "weaker sex" and they fight and rail at every opportunity to express their indignation, frustration, and outrage at any perceived "wrong" or "unfair" treatment - no matter how ridiculous it seems to the great "unwoke" masses. "Women were put on earth to be victims of men," appears to be a basic tenet that the Left is trying to make canon. 

Edited September 26, 2018 by Nanker

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 hour ago, Teddy KGB said:

Can someone block Tibs and Pearl from mucking up the thread ? 

 

 

 

You can block them individually. I do. It only works if you are signed in, and you do have the option to see any of their posts you like. Do realize that some people will quote them though, so their stupidity cannot be completely ignored.

[3rdnlng]

2 hours ago, Buddy Hix said:

I’m too lazy to search through 100 pages of this thread, but why are Trumpers against an FBI investigation?

 

Seems like the best way to get to the bottom of this.

This subject has been beaten to death here. The answer to your question is in this thread, over and over again. You tend to make a habit of visiting here on rare occasions while being ignorant of the subject, and requesting that the regulars here become your personal Reader's Digest. If you want to become more political savvy why not actually join the PPP discussions here and learn something?

[Koko78]

2 hours ago, Buddy Hix said:

I’m too lazy to search through 100 pages of this thread, but why are Trumpers against an FBI investigation?

 

The FBI refuses to investigate because you and Gator touch yourselves at night.

[Tiberius]

Just now, Koko78 said:

 

The FBI refuses to investigate because you and Gator touch yourselves at night.

They might find out it was me that crapped in your mouth that time "awhile back." 

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

2 hours ago, Nanker said:

In part this is their payback for the Republican’s treatment of Garland a “moderate” whom B. O. Nominated to replace the staunch conservative Anton Scalia. In other words it’s a high stakes pissing contest. 

 

Further to this point above, @Buddy Hix, you will also hear the argument that the GOP held up moving forward with the Garland nomination because it was an election year, and since the Kavanaugh appointment is happening in an election year, then the GOP must hold up until after the election.

 

It's a common head fake by the left, who all-too-easily forget that the Garland nomination was coming on the heals of a 'presidential' election, while the Kavanaugh is not. There is precedent the way the Garland nom was handled, but the left is not interested in anything other than throwing a massive fit because Hillary Maopants lost what was her rightful place on the throne.

[DC Tom]

3 hours ago, Buddy Hix said:

I’m too lazy to search through 100 pages of this thread, but why are Trumpers against an FBI investigation?

 

Seems like the best way to get to the bottom of this.

20 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Plus...they're not asking the FBI to do a further background check.  They say that's what it is, but they're asking for a criminal investigation in to charges of rape and sexual assault.  

 

Having been through a few, on both sides of the table, and having had to answer for a criminal accusation in some of them, I know that you do not investigate criminal complaints in a background investigation.  The investigators do an NCIC check, look for police reports and charges, compile them into an overall data package, and send them on for adjudication.  They do NOT INVESTIGATE CHARGES THEY FIND, NOR DO THEY INITIATE NEW ONES, NOR DO THEY GO INTERVIEW WITNESSES AND VICTIMS TO ESTABLISH THE VERACITY OF THE CHARGES.  That is NOT how things work.

 

These accusations would actually be more effective if they were filed with the proper authorities, so they'd be properly investigated by the proper authorities AND properly recorded by the FBI for his background check.  That they aren't doing so is very telling: they don't want the criminal justice system involved, because they know they can't come close to meeting a burden of proof, so they're trying the accusations - successfully - in the court of public opinion.  Very Athenian...the boule leading the eccleasia in an ostracism.  They should write their votes on pottery shards.

 

 

[Tiberius]

Trump blathering out insults against an alleged  sexual assault victim is good. His argument that she was drunk is just terribly good. He's basically telling men that is a women is drunk, have at it.