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

[Rob's House]

12 hours ago, Buddy Hix said:

I think you make a good point, but Ivwould argue that Trump’s action are far more egregious considering his position.

The Democrats intentionally created a trial-by-ambush kangaroo court where they all publicly, decisively, and unequivocally declared a man to be a sexual predator based on the inconsistent and ever-changing story of a left-wing activist which has been refuted at every point at which corroboration might have been possible.

 

In doing so they put him, his wife, and children through hell, exploited the whole issue of sexual abuse, wiped their feet on the principle of presumed innocence, and spit in the face of everyone who has ever been falsely accused of, or been a victim of sexual abuse.

 

And you think Trump recounting the holes in her story is more egregious? Get fukked.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Rob's House
Punctuation

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, Buddy Hix said:

I think you make a good point, but Ivwould argue that Trump’s action are far more egregious considering his position.

 

Nothing in this entire nomination has been even remotely as egregious as what the left did to Dr. Ford. They used her...and continue to use her...as a pawn in their attempt to divide the country, and in the process they took the concerns of a woman who believes she was sexually assaulted, and they shelved her concerns until it was politically expedient for the Dems.

 

That's the single most disgusting part of this entire event, and the fastest way to tell someone who is all about ideology is how quickly they tell you that Kavanaugh is the problem here.

 

I hope they confirm Kavanaugh as quickly as possible, and then run ad after ad of how DiFi betrayed Ford, and how Dem staffers put Senators in danger by doxxing them, and how all these nutbags tried to destroy the Kavanaugh family as they casually discard of Dr. Ford like they did with every other Cindy Sheehan they rape for their own advantage.

 

Mid terms can't come soon enough. I hope the left gets obliterated for the horrible fate they cast for Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh.

[Prickly Pete]

2 hours ago, Buddy Hix said:

Those people you describe and resent are still worthy of the respect of the President, especially the ones who are actual survivors of sexual assault. I’d argue they make up a large percentage of the population. Trump’s actions were pathetic and indefensible IMO.

 

 

Honestly, piss off you clown.

33 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Nothing in this entire nomination has been even remotely as egregious as what the left did to Dr. Ford. They used her...and continue to use her...as a pawn in their attempt to divide the country, and in the process they took the concerns of a woman who believes she was sexually assaulted, and they shelved her concerns until it was politically expedient for the Dems.

 

That's the single most disgusting part of this entire event, and the fastest way to tell someone who is all about ideology is how quickly they tell you that Kavanaugh is the problem here.

 

I hope they confirm Kavanaugh as quickly as possible, and then run ad after ad of how DiFi betrayed Ford, and how Dem staffers put Senators in danger by doxxing them, and how all these nutbags tried to destroy the Kavanaugh family as they casually discard of Dr. Ford like they did with every other Cindy Sheehan they rape for their own advantage.

 

Mid terms can't come soon enough. I hope the left gets obliterated for the horrible fate they cast for Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh.

 

Don't bother. 

[IDBillzFan]

 

Wherever you are on Thursday, walk out.

 

Yeah. Good plan. 

[Figster]

2 hours ago, Rob's House said:

The Democrats intentionally created a trial-by-ambush kangaroo court where they, all publicly, decisively, and unequivocally declared a man to be a sexual predator based on the inconsistent and ever-changing story of a left-wing activist which has been refuted at every point at which corroboration might have been possible.

 

In doing so they put him, his wife, and children through hell, exploited the whole issue of sexual abuse, wiped their feet on the principle of presumed innocence, and spit in the face of everyone who has ever been falsely accused of, or been a victim of sexual abuse.

 

And you think Trump recounting the holes in her story is more egregious? Get fukked.

Everything you say is true. What gets me is Trump could have come away from this smelling like a rose. Instead he chose to put Ford at the butt end of a joke. It risked the Kavanaugh confirmation by way of swing votes and was like pouring salt in the open wound that divides this country in my humble opinion. 

 

With all due respect I just don't get it.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 hours ago, Buddy Hix said:

Those people you describe and resent are still worthy of the respect of the President, especially the ones who are actual survivors of sexual assault. I’d argue they make up a large percentage of the population. Trump’s actions were pathetic and indefensible IMO.

I don't resent anyone, I simply pointed out the facts as I see them. But I'm not a dimwit, either, and I will tell you that I don't wrap myself in a cloak of emotions when considering the difference between "actual survivors of sexual assault" and a political operative/pawn who resets the narrative du juor. 

 

I'd also argue that it's perfectly reasonable to call bull sh6t on a bull sh6t story....and if somehow you or anyone else sees that as a reflection on personsally held beliefs on actual victims of sexual assault, that's really your issue, not mine. 

 

Btw, news has leaked that the FBI found no corroboration of the esteemed dr's story, not surprising anyone as there were several versions.  Shocking. 

 

[Alaska Darin]

5 hours ago, Buddy Hix said:

It doesn’t have to be the standard for confirmation, but it can be the public’s standard when considering the claim. Which is something the President should understand, no?

If you start listening to the fans, you’re going to become one.  Principles are one of the most important parts of real leadership.  This is plainly an attempt at mob rule, much like Obamacare was.  You sell two or three easy to understand points by hammering them incessantly, while ignoring anything even remotely reasonable.  That’s why the dummies are able to talk about “preexisting conditions” this election cycle while ignoring that everyone is paying an average of about $20k a year for health care.

 

Liberal partisans are literally the dumbest people on the planet.

[boyst]

9 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

What this person did was awful, it literally put the lives of Senators and their families at risk for nothing more than a political gain. Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning are heroes who put their lives on the line to expose corruption. !@#$ off if you don't want to know what unconstitutional war crimes your government is committing. 

If you have the chance today to walk in to traffic, please do.  Society does not need more of this type of belief. You are a terrible person of partisan bias and deplorable.

 

Edit:. I realize you're likely emotional af and likely disconnected from critical thought; therefore, walk in to traffic isn't a statement to say you should be hit by a truck. It's a statement that you just have no freaking idea what the hell you're talking about beyond some emotional psychobabble that is devoid of intellectual capacity. Walking in to traffic would likely get your head thumped so you could clear your head.  Maybe, in other words: you need a smack in the head so you can think straight because what you've spewed is just inconceivable to derive for anyone with intelligence and understanding of this entire charade.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Boyst62

[ALF]

This is what partisan politics looks like , it gets ugly. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

5 hours ago, Figster said:

Everything you say is true. What gets me is Trump could have come away from this smelling like a rose. Instead he chose to put Ford at the butt end of a joke. It risked the Kavanaugh confirmation by way of swing votes and was like pouring salt in the open wound that divides this country in my humble opinion. 

 

With all due respect I just don't get it.

Let me see - Trump pointed out the obvious: she doesn't know who, what, when, or where,  none of her named friends or acquaintances support her allegations, and she constantly changed her story, but he made her the "butt end of a joke"?   ? M'kay.

[Doc]

The Dems have shown their hand.  Any (future) nominee will get the same "put an accusation out there no matter how weak (and there literally is none weaker than Ford's)" because they're pissed about Merrick Garland.  But as Barry said: "elections have consequences," and so too do changing rules when you're in power. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

The Dems have shown their hand.  Any (future) nominee will get the same "put an accusation out there no matter how weak (and there literally is none weaker than Ford's)" because they're pissed about Merrick Garland.  But as Barry said: "elections have consequences," and so too do changing rules when you're in power. 

If the Senate gains 3 real Rs, this will not happen again as there will be no need to appease the Flake, Collins, or Murkowski-s of the Senate (this extra week was for Collins-cover IMO). Now, will they pick up 3 real R seats? No idea. But if they do - this nonsense stops quickly. If they do not... then sadly, I agree that this is the new normal, and how sad is that?

[Alaska Darin]

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

The Dems have shown their hand.  Any (future) nominee will get the same "put an accusation out there no matter how weak (and there literally is nothing weaker than Ford's)" because they're pissed about Merrick Garland.  But as Barry said: "elections have consequences," and so too do changing rules when you're in power. 

The Dems don't get to be pissed because Joe Biden set the precedent about not appointing SCJs in a President's final year.  That's the thing about the liberal mindset...they never see the consequences until they're gettting pummeled by them.

[nkreed]

3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I don't resent anyone, I simply pointed out the facts as I see them. But I'm not a dimwit, either, and I will tell you that I don't wrap myself in a cloak of emotions when considering the difference between "actual survivors of sexual assault" and a political operative/pawn who resets the narrative du juor. 

 

I'd also argue that it's perfectly reasonable to call bull sh6t on a bull sh6t story....and if somehow you or anyone else sees that as a reflection on personsally held beliefs on actual victims of sexual assault, that's really your issue, not mine. 

 

Btw, news has leaked that the FBI found no corroboration of the esteemed dr's story, not surprising anyone as there were several versions.  Shocking. 

 

This is why there is significant amount of under reporting of sexual assaults. Call bull on what is "presumed bull" is how we got here. Women have generally been thought of as less of a person since forever.  (I'll conceed some religions and cultures actually point to women as the sacred line).  However in European thought and the Western world born from European expansion, the woman has been treated as inferior.  So if a woman makes a statement of sexual assault, it has historically been presumed bull if the male is of any importance to society.  

 

I'm not typing this to make any statement about the proceedings.  I wanted to point out the presumed bull part of the statement and to try to explain the "other sides" thinking.

 

 

2 hours ago, Alaska Darin said:

If you start listening to the fans, you’re going to become one.  Principles are one of the most important parts of real leadership.  This is plainly an attempt at mob rule, much like Obamacare was.  You sell two or three easy to understand points by hammering them incessantly, while ignoring anything even remotely reasonable.  That’s why the dummies are able to talk about “preexisting conditions” this election cycle while ignoring that everyone is paying an average of about $20k a year for health care.

 

Liberal partisans are literally the dumbest people on the planet.

Health insurance.....yikes here we go.  We are paying 20k a year. First, we were well on our way to that number without Obamacare.  Using this as an argument that it's Obamacares fault is revisionist history.  Second, who can afford that? 20k on healthcare is absolutely ridiculous and where do these profits go? Pharma, medical tech and insurance (liability insurance that is). If these numbers don't tell you that our healthcare system is absolutely out of control I don't know what will. Again, blaming it on Obamacare is ludicrous.  Our healthcare industry was headed this way well before the law.

 

I think I know where you will fall in this argument, but I would rather have an entire nation paying for health insurance through a single means than only those who can afford it through a private industry.  The cost would be reduced because we are all one pool of healthy and sick, and the ability to control cost would be significant.

 

I'm also confident a second additional insurance market will exist as well, leaving people who can afford the payments to have additional items not covered under the single system.  BTW, nice assertion at the end.?

[Tiberius]

14 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

The Dems don't get to be pissed because Joe Biden set the precedent about not appointing SCJs in a President's final year.  That's the thing about the liberal mindset...they never see the consequences until they're gettting pummeled by them.

There was no precedent set by Biden. You are just parroting Mitch McConnel's nonsense. 

[DC Tom]

9 hours ago, Buddy Hix said:

It doesn’t have to be the standard for confirmation, but it can be the public’s standard when considering the claim. Which is something the President should understand, no?

 

It's the "But there's consensus!" argument.

 

Whatever is true isn't decided by the public's feelings.  It definitely isn't decided by the public's manipulated feelings.

[3rdnlng]

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

There was no precedent set by Biden. You are just parroting Mitch McConnel's nonsense. 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

 

Biden contended this was not an attempt to play politics with the selection.

"Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."

In the case of Obama's nomination of Garland, Democrats have argued that the Supreme Court seat should be filled immediately because the court needs a deciding vote.

Biden in his 1992 speech addressed that issue, saying that some people "may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time. But as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the president, the senate, and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks."

[Magox]

Predictit has it at 81% chance he'll be confirmed.  Highest yet.  

 

I don't know, the Republicans do sound awfully confident but I still believe that Flake is a no.

 

 

[Tiberius]

4 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

 

Biden contended this was not an attempt to play politics with the selection.

"Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."

In the case of Obama's nomination of Garland, Democrats have argued that the Supreme Court seat should be filled immediately because the court needs a deciding vote.

Biden in his 1992 speech addressed that issue, saying that some people "may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time. But as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the president, the senate, and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks."

Do you understand what a "precedent" is? No, obviously. 

[snafu]

13 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

There was no precedent set by Biden. You are just parroting Mitch McConnel's nonsense. 

 

Whether that's true or not, it was Schumer who wants to extend it to midterm elections.