Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Murkowski confirmed she will vote no

I hope she can successfully encourage Flake and Collins to think long and hard about voting for this slimeball.

Flake already announced he is "YES"... I guess we all knew he had no spine when it actually comes to vote against GOP. It boils down to Collins. Manchin will vote the way Collins does.

Link about flake?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Murkowski confirmed she will vote no

I hope she can successfully encourage Flake and Collins to think long and hard about voting for this slimeball.

Flake already announced he is "YES"... I guess we all knew he had no spine when it actually comes to vote against GOP. It boils down to Collins. Manchin will vote the way Collins does.

Link because I am pretty sure that is not right.

If PP’s source is CNN they mistakenly ran a banner saying that he is a yes, but then put up a different banner with an old quote saying “unless something big happens.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this vote is more bad news than good for Republicans and BK supporters

Agree. Murkowski gave a clear signal.

Collins will announce her vote this afternoon and that will likely be it.

Need the Flake too.

True. Even if Collins/Murkowski are both no, Flake/Manchin could still put Kavanaugh over.

If Collins and Murkowski are nos, it is likely Manchin will be a no as well. He won't want to be the one to put Kavanaugh through.

But then he'd be voted out. Republicans in WV will be furious that he went along with the Dems' smear campaign.

Why are republicans in WV voting for Manchin? I am Democrat and am puzzled with this logic. Is he uncontested?

He's very moderate. He's more like a Republican than a Democrat.

Then why would they not vote an actual Republican in stead for voting for someone is "like a Republican"?

Not sure, since I'm not from WV, but a good guess would be that his opponent was too far to the right, and so the moderate was more appealing.

I do that in the opposite. I'm an R, but if the R running is too extreme and the D is moderate (like Stewart v Kaine), I'll go with the moderate. Or at least, I have in the past. I'm so furious with the Dems' smear campaign that I don't see myself voting for a D senator again any time soon.

Would you vote for Stewart? Or would you sit at home or write in?

I'd write-in someone else. Just not going to vote for a D senator. (It's a protest vote....he's going to win.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN analyst suggests Murkowsk was likelyi released to vote her conscience, thus her no vote on cloture. If true, that means GOP confident it has the votes.

She's already proven herself primary proof. Collins has not. Flake wants to run for president. And nothing has enraged/motivated GOP voters in a long time like the treatment of Kavanaugh and mob rule tactics of the Democrats.

Mob rule? Jesus Christ.

Yeah. Cory Booker and Maxine Waters encouraging ppl to 'get in their faces,' 'go to where they eat and sleep.' Rand Paul being attacked in his backyard, Steve Scalise, an R Senate candidate being attacked with a knife in California. Your party's problem is that it wants all of its rights and victories to come out of courts and getting people who disagree with you to shut up. Maybe you should ask yourself WTF is a scotus seat so important in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Murkowski confirmed she will vote no

I hope she can successfully encourage Flake and Collins to think long and hard about voting for this slimeball.

Flake already announced he is "YES"... I guess we all knew he had no spine when it actually comes to vote against GOP. It boils down to Collins. Manchin will vote the way Collins does.

Sh*t I missed that.

[Anonymous]

If voting goes along party lines, Senators who represent 55.8% of the US population will have voted "NO" and Senators who represent 43.6% of the US population will have voted "YES," and the motion will pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So because they suffered sexual abuse, they should take it out on a rich guy who had a uncorroboated accusation leveled against him? Like you, I don't think WV women are weak head-bobblers. They know it's wrong to punish an innocent man because someone else abused them.

There was corroborating evidence supporting Prof. Ford's testimony. There is even more corroborating evidence supporting Deborah Ramirez's allegation. Maybe none of it is strong enough to convince you of its truth, but you're just wrong to say there was no corroboration.

Please post this evidence. I am sincere.

Corroborating evidence means any evidence that makes her testimony seem more likely to be true - it doesn't mean stone cold proof that we can throw Kavanaugh in jail.

Lots of things corroborated what she said in small ways - the people claiming Kavanaugh often drank to excess, his own calendar showing that he went to gatherings similar to the one she described, etc. etc.

But lots of high school kids drink/get drunk and go to small gatherings. Her best friend says that she was not at any party nor does not remember meeting Brett Kavanaugh. There is even an article today in the WSJ that Leland felt pressured to change her testimony:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152?mod=trending_now_3

That goes to the weight of the evidence, not whether there was any. There was evidence even if, ultimately, you find it to be insufficiently persuasive.

But how is this considered evidence? Couldn't any accuser insert the name of any known male drinker from high school who liked to hang out in a small group into an accusation? I am not a lawyer, but I really am trying to understand why this is still considered evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any point in calling Collins if I am not her constituent?

Yes, please encourage Collins to vote for Kavanaugh. There are a bunch of hysterical single women outside her office telling her to vote against Kavanaugh.
She’s too smart for that.

You must have missed the “hysterics” imploring her to vote yes and praying with their hands on her office name plate.

Yes, let's mock people that pray, too.

I forgot to add I'm a Dem and would implore you not to mock people who pray just because we don't agree with them.

PP is calling out the poster for using the historically loaded term hysterical to slam “single women” (ie they’re too ugly to f*ck) who oppose Kav. I’m sure you’re upset about that causal misogyny right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN analyst suggests Murkowsk was likelyi released to vote her conscience, thus her no vote on cloture. If true, that means GOP confident it has the votes.

She's already proven herself primary proof. Collins has not. Flake wants to run for president. And nothing has enraged/motivated GOP voters in a long time like the treatment of Kavanaugh and mob rule tactics of the Democrats.

Mob rule? Jesus Christ.

Yeah. Cory Booker and Maxine Waters encouraging ppl to 'get in their faces,' 'go to where they eat and sleep.' Rand Paul being attacked in his backyard, Steve Scalise, an R Senate candidate being attacked with a knife in California. Your party's problem is that it wants all of its rights and victories to come out of courts and getting people who disagree with you to shut up. Maybe you should ask yourself WTF is a scotus seat so important in the first place.

Rand Paull was attcked by his neighbor, not an "activist." We still don't know why, but it wasn't political, it was personal.

[Anonymous]

This is the bottom line on why BK needs ro go. From Sen Wyden:

https://twitter.com/ronwyden/status/1048242151778336768?s=21

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So because they suffered sexual abuse, they should take it out on a rich guy who had a uncorroboated accusation leveled against him? Like you, I don't think WV women are weak head-bobblers. They know it's wrong to punish an innocent man because someone else abused them.

There was corroborating evidence supporting Prof. Ford's testimony. There is even more corroborating evidence supporting Deborah Ramirez's allegation. Maybe none of it is strong enough to convince you of its truth, but you're just wrong to say there was no corroboration.

Please post this evidence. I am sincere.

Corroborating evidence means any evidence that makes her testimony seem more likely to be true - it doesn't mean stone cold proof that we can throw Kavanaugh in jail.

Lots of things corroborated what she said in small ways - the people claiming Kavanaugh often drank to excess, his own calendar showing that he went to gatherings similar to the one she described, etc. etc.

But lots of high school kids drink/get drunk and go to small gatherings. Her best friend says that she was not at any party nor does not remember meeting Brett Kavanaugh. There is even an article today in the WSJ that Leland felt pressured to change her testimony:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152?mod=trending_now_3

That goes to the weight of the evidence, not whether there was any. There was evidence even if, ultimately, you find it to be insufficiently persuasive.

But how is this considered evidence? Couldn't any accuser insert the name of any known male drinker from high school who liked to hang out in a small group into an accusation? I am not a lawyer, but I really am trying to understand why this is still considered evidence.

Then maybe you should listen to those who are.

[Anonymous]

Flake pretty clearly a yes. This morning he said he is a yes unless something big happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Flake pretty clearly a yes. This morning he said he is a yes unless something big happens.

Need Collins and Manchin. Manchin will probably wait to decide until after Collins.

[Anonymous]

Have a SCOTUS nominee ever been formally voted down? I can’t think of one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have a SCOTUS nominee ever been formally voted down? I can’t think of one.

Bork.

None since.