Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is one thing I don’t understand- why is the MAGA crowd always in a perpetual state of anger even after they win. Trump gets elected, they stayed angry. They hold all levers of power in dc, still angry. They win tax vote, still angry. They win Kavanaugh, still angry.

I have not detected any anger among the Republicans I move with - I am not one. They focus on what matters: get out and vote.

Democrats yell and demonstrate - especially the younger ones but when it means getting off your ass and voting, they think it is too much of an effort.

REALLY? What do you call the anger at football players taking a knee?

Principle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Collins called for Franken to resign without an ethics hearing and investigation. Her concern for due process and presumption of innocence is a new development

There was a photo remember

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Collins called for Franken to resign without an ethics hearing and investigation. Her concern for due process and presumption of innocence is a new development

He acknowledged it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is one thing I don’t understand- why is the MAGA crowd always in a perpetual state of anger even after they win. Trump gets elected, they stayed angry. They hold all levers of power in dc, still angry. They win tax vote, still angry. They win Kavanaugh, still angry.

Because it will always be a damned fight against the crazed liberals. It never ends, we need to keep fighting to keep it from falling back into their hands. Poor Kavanaugh will never live in peace again because of you lying sociopaths. We will never forget and a supermajority is coming.

And there’s the anger.

Who is this “you” you’re talking about? Every person who posts on here is an individual. They are parents and librarians and doctors and office workers and social workers. It’s full-on paranoid and does nobody any good to rail against this monolithic “you liberals.”

[Anonymous]

Why are the protesters chanting Black Lives Matter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DP...I am guessing the PP is referring to the fact that a vote for a senator is 6x in Whyoming the vote for a Senator in California, or the fact that Senators representing 44% of the population are voting for a SCOTUS nominee who i opposed by 61% of the electorate. Or the fact that the dems in the House received on aggregate 53% of the vote but have 47% of the seats. No matter how you slice it, even before gerrymandering and voter supression, there is a structural imbalance.

So change the constitution or learn to win within the existing structure.

Brilliant. If only we’d thought of that.

DC statehood with 2 senators and 1 representative NOW.

No wonder Democrats don't make any headway. The come up with ideas that are non-starters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are the protesters chanting Black Lives Matter?

Liberal media loves it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are the protesters chanting Black Lives Matter?

Because they protest for the sake of protesting ..... just aimless nonsense that achieves nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DP...I am guessing the PP is referring to the fact that a vote for a senator is 6x in Whyoming the vote for a Senator in California, or the fact that Senators representing 44% of the population are voting for a SCOTUS nominee who i opposed by 61% of the electorate. Or the fact that the dems in the House received on aggregate 53% of the vote but have 47% of the seats. No matter how you slice it, even before gerrymandering and voter supression, there is a structural imbalance.

So change the constitution or learn to win within the existing structure.

Brilliant. If only we’d thought of that.

DC statehood with 2 senators and 1 representative NOW.

No wonder Democrats don't make any headway. The come up with ideas that are non-starters.

Why is it a nonstarter? Population of Wyoming is 580,000. Population of DC is 700,000. The only reason it was never given representation is that it would vote massively Democratic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"The GOP did this preemptive PR blitz, this constant drumbeat of 'wholesomeness.' Because they KNEW.

"They knew what a vicious person lay under that facade, and so they set the stage so that accusers wouldn't be seen as credible. That facade is gone now."

It was reported in the Post today that, "Kavanaugh, a former political staffer who had micromanaged his confirmation process and media coverage of his nomination was eager to defend himself publicly."

It definitely doesn't seem like it was a job interview if Kavanaguh was running the show and already hired his legal staff. I guess he felt, and was, entitled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DP...I am guessing the PP is referring to the fact that a vote for a senator is 6x in Whyoming the vote for a Senator in California, or the fact that Senators representing 44% of the population are voting for a SCOTUS nominee who i opposed by 61% of the electorate. Or the fact that the dems in the House received on aggregate 53% of the vote but have 47% of the seats. No matter how you slice it, even before gerrymandering and voter supression, there is a structural imbalance.

So change the constitution or learn to win within the existing structure.

Brilliant. If only we’d thought of that.

DC statehood with 2 senators and 1 representative NOW.

I don’t think demanding it and stomping your foot is how you make it happen, but good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Ford has more evidence backing up her allegation. a friend who said she mentioned it a long time ago and emailed him kavanaugh's name before he was nominated to name him as her attacker

That’s what SHE says. This “evidence” was never presented to the SJC nor presented with her testimony. I wonder why?

Meanwhile, the evidence she DID present exonerated Kavanaugh. Not one person she said was there had any knowledge of such a party. Not one. Not even her dear friend, who also said that she does not know Kavanaugh.

You are smoking crack. Nothing exonerated him. NOt his demeanor, not his calendar, not his yearbook, not the conversations she had way before he was a SC nominee.

And all we know about the FBI investigation is that it DID NOT EXONERATE HIM. Warren told us this. She said it was incomplete, uncovered things that he had told the committee at the hearing that were FALSE, and it DID NOT EXONERATE HIM.

Warren’s opinion. One has to wonder why none of the Dems leaked anything they saw. Actually, no, we don’t wonder. We know. Nothing there came close to corroborating her claims. Everything that was there did more to exonerate him. Particularly the letters and the 302’s of those whom she claimed were present.

They did on previous six FBI background checks. Durbin tweeted a response to repub senate twitter page that claimed K was clear, but he stated to CNN and in his tweet that their info was false and republicans, “must correct it”. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-democrats-suggest-past-fbi-probes-found-evidence-of-kavanaugh-misconduct/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are the protesters chanting Black Lives Matter?

Are they? What does this have to do with black people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Ford has more evidence backing up her allegation. a friend who said she mentioned it a long time ago and emailed him kavanaugh's name before he was nominated to name him as her attacker

That’s what SHE says. This “evidence” was never presented to the SJC nor presented with her testimony. I wonder why?

Meanwhile, the evidence she DID present exonerated Kavanaugh. Not one person she said was there had any knowledge of such a party. Not one. Not even her dear friend, who also said that she does not know Kavanaugh.

You are smoking crack. Nothing exonerated him. NOt his demeanor, not his calendar, not his yearbook, not the conversations she had way before he was a SC nominee.

And all we know about the FBI investigation is that it DID NOT EXONERATE HIM. Warren told us this. She said it was incomplete, uncovered things that he had told the committee at the hearing that were FALSE, and it DID NOT EXONERATE HIM.

Warren’s opinion. One has to wonder why none of the Dems leaked anything they saw. Actually, no, we don’t wonder. We know. Nothing there came close to corroborating her claims. Everything that was there did more to exonerate him. Particularly the letters and the 302’s of those whom she claimed were present.

They did on previous six FBI background checks. Durbin tweeted a response to repub senate twitter page that claimed K was clear, but he stated to CNN and in his tweet that their info was false and republicans, “must correct it”. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-democrats-suggest-past-fbi-probes-found-evidence-of-kavanaugh-misconduct/

Come on, Dick. Speak about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are the protesters chanting Black Lives Matter?

Are they? What does this have to do with black people?

Need to ask them - but of course none of the liberal media will ask.