Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

As I look at all the insults to one another on this thread and to the public figures, I am reminded of the quote from a parable of Jesus: “But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person.” In our speech to each other, even anonymously, we should not become what we hate. Just speaking our hatred aloud defiles us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Crying and slobbering. I saw a guy fighting for his good name. When he asked the senator “are you?” I said that’s my guy. I want someone who’s going to fight back.

I hope at the end of this, when Trumpsters - and that is what you are if you support someone like Brett Kavanaugh - recover their senses, that they are to explain how a guy who acts like an angry drunk prepping for a bar fight seems like a good pic for the Supreme Court. If it were left up to you people, you’d pick pilots from a group passed out on heroin and surgeons from rave attendees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The moderate Republican is dead and is no longer.

The moderate Democrat is dead and is no longer, with a single exception.

No, we’re still pretty moderate and the party of the patriots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep imagining Justice Roberts calling flake, manchin, and Sasse to tell them to vote down, we the justices dont want him here.

That would be too political. Roberts could just ask Kav to recuse himself a lot, so it's like he's not there.

I didn’t think Roberts could actually ask them to recuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. Sad day when he is voted in. How infuriating is it to see the environment for my young daughters headed backwards in time.

I’m sure they’ll appreciate a country where a great woman took a brave stand for the presumption of innocence.

+ 1 million

Mmmmhmm. Presumption of innocence with a sham investigation. We see you.

We see you, too.

Why are you happy about it? Is owning the libs worth tearing the country apart? If this were a democratic nominee you would've screamed bloody murder and you know it. That's why I am not casting another vote for GOP. The pure hatred of the "others," and forgetting the others are your family, your neighbors, your friends.

You are such a hypocrite. No one is more hateful than liberals "if you don't agree with me on everything you are an evil sexist/racist."

I am not a liberal. Well, I supposed I wasn't one until y'all nominated Trump.

Who assaulted women and mocked POWs and disabled people. Since you were ok with that, I don't think the epithets above are not suitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep imagining Justice Roberts calling flake, manchin, and Sasse to tell them to vote down, we the justices dont want him here.

That would be too political. Roberts could just ask Kav to recuse himself a lot, so it's like he's not there.

I didn’t think Roberts could actually ask them to recuse.

He can’t.
Otherwise, RBG would have recused herself on the immigration decision regarding the Trump administration given her comments regarding Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As I look at all the insults to one another on this thread and to the public figures, I am reminded of the quote from a parable of Jesus: “But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person.” In our speech to each other, even anonymously, we should not become what we hate. Just speaking our hatred aloud defiles us.

Well said by Jesus and thanks for sharing.

In my view that hatred equates to bigotry in so many ways.

[Anonymous]

Best new nickname for Kavanaugh (courtesy of Bill Maher):

Schlitz Kavanaugh

Let's make it go viral!

[Anonymous]

I am still astounded that so many people “believer her” despite the fact that there was absolutely NO evidence implicating his guilt. Not one shred.

In fact, the evidence that was presented actually exonerated him.

The one thing this vote shows is that there are still people in this country who believe that in order to “convict” a person of a crime, there needs to be evidence of that crime. There was none.

I guess people were so determined to derail this nominee that they would believe anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am still astounded that so many people “believer her” despite the fact that there was absolutely NO evidence implicating his guilt. Not one shred.

In fact, the evidence that was presented actually exonerated him.

The one thing this vote shows is that there are still people in this country who believe that in order to “convict” a person of a crime, there needs to be evidence of that crime. There was none.

I guess people were so determined to derail this nominee that they would believe anything.

Which evidence was that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am still astounded that so many people “believer her” despite the fact that there was absolutely NO evidence implicating his guilt. Not one shred.

In fact, the evidence that was presented actually exonerated him.

The one thing this vote shows is that there are still people in this country who believe that in order to “convict” a person of a crime, there needs to be evidence of that crime. There was none.

I guess people were so determined to derail this nominee that they would believe anything.

Yes, and did you see the thread I started a minute ago? It was locked and I was invited to post here.

Two wonderful things came out of this entire episode:

1) The presumption of innocence has prevailed, and it was demonstrated that a mere accusation - devoid of evidence - is not sufficient to destroy someone's life.

2) Voters have seen how low into the gutter Democrats will go to "take out" someone with whom they disagree politically. I believe this will show at the polls next month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am still astounded that so many people “believer her” despite the fact that there was absolutely NO evidence implicating his guilt. Not one shred.

In fact, the evidence that was presented actually exonerated him.

The one thing this vote shows is that there are still people in this country who believe that in order to “convict” a person of a crime, there needs to be evidence of that crime. There was none.

I guess people were so determined to derail this nominee that they would believe anything.

Which evidence was that?

The statements of those who SHE said were present that stated they had no knowledge of any such party. And, the fact that her best friend said she didn’t know Kavanaugh.
Add to that the fact that she could not remember pretty significant details - like the date, the place, getting to and getting home from the place she couldn’t remember - yet, she was able to remember other “random” details like she drank one beer and remembered running into the street thinking she got away. It makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Susan Collins was the grownup in the room—just when her country needed her intervention.

While she clearly was trying to look at the evidence and facts, she completely ignored the fact that Kavanaugh's own calendar shows the assault took place on 11 July. I just cannot see how it is that people say there is on evidence when there is that calendar.

Debunked. Move on.

It hasn’t been debunked, please be civil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am still astounded that so many people “believer her” despite the fact that there was absolutely NO evidence implicating his guilt. Not one shred.

In fact, the evidence that was presented actually exonerated him.

The one thing this vote shows is that there are still people in this country who believe that in order to “convict” a person of a crime, there needs to be evidence of that crime. There was none.

I guess people were so determined to derail this nominee that they would believe anything.

Which evidence was that?

The statements of those who SHE said were present that stated they had no knowledge of any such party. And, the fact that her best friend said she didn’t know Kavanaugh.
Add to that the fact that she could not remember pretty significant details - like the date, the place, getting to and getting home from the place she couldn’t remember - yet, she was able to remember other “random” details like she drank one beer and remembered running into the street thinking she got away. It makes no sense.

So ultimately you believed him. Because the witnesses did not support his statements either. You just took his word and that was your "evidence."

[Anonymous]

Makes no sense?

Please tell us about your post-trauma psychology credentials.

And there was plenty of potential corroboration. The FBI wasn’t allowed to talk to dozens of people.