Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I assumed Feinstein would do her best to keep a perjurer and an sexual assault perpetrator off of our supreme court. So yes

I am confident we will not have a perjurer or sexual assault perpetrator on the SCOTUS.

So you think Mancin and Collins are both a "no" then, because anything else would be false, based on the evidence the FBI wasn't able to probe, but that has been made public.

The FBI spoke with people with first-hand knowledge. Everything else is heresy. And Ford DID change the date of her "assault" from the mid-80s to the early-80s.

lol The FBI didn't speak with Ford. All they have from her is heresy.

But her voice doesn’t matter.

Don't you know, facts DO matter.

Heresy doesn't.

Exactly!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should I call manchin and Collins ?

I sent them emails.

Unless you vote in both their states, they won't care.

That is not necessarily true on a national issue such as this one. I know several people who have been staffers in Senate offices, both sides of the aisle, and they do indeed collect all data in and outside of their states on certain and critical policy issues.

Manchin line was busy
Collins staff on another call and voice mail full.

There is a form you can fill out and send via email. It's on the Collins website on the contact page.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always knew there would be an inevitable backlash to the MeToo Movement, but I certainly didn't want it to play out this way with an accused sexual predator, blackout drinker, partisan, liar appointed to the bench. Geez. This country is in the toilet. I'm not sure where we go from here. But definitely feel like a stranger in a strange land today.

All thinking, engaged women, I hope you will vote in the mid-terms.

As a thinking, engaged woman, I certainly will. But I won't necessarily vote the way you want.

DP - That is fine. You vote your way as long as it is informed. I always respect differing opinions and ideology as long as it is thoughtful and informed. That is the beauty of a democracy and I am grateful to live in one. I just fear that the guardrails of our delicate democracy is being chipped away by this administration.

Thank you. I do consider myself highly informed, although my interpretation and prioritization of issues are not usually in alignment with liberals.

As far as chipping away at democracy, I fear a bad precedent will be set if we switch to a presumption of guilt among those accused of crimes. And while I know fully well this is not a criminal trial, neither is it a simple "job interview" as some would have you believe. My opinion is that the president's nominee for the SCOTUS should be confirmed, excepting some heinous act that was proven to be true.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I assumed Feinstein would do her best to keep a perjurer and an sexual assault perpetrator off of our supreme court. So yes

I am confident we will not have a perjurer or sexual assault perpetrator on the SCOTUS.

So you think Mancin and Collins are both a "no" then, because anything else would be false, based on the evidence the FBI wasn't able to probe, but that has been made public.

The FBI spoke with people with first-hand knowledge. Everything else is heresy. And Ford DID change the date of her "assault" from the mid-80s to the early-80s.

lol The FBI didn't speak with Ford. All they have from her is heresy.

But her voice doesn’t matter.

Don't you know, facts DO matter.

Heresy doesn't.

For the love .. it’s HEARSAY. NOT HERESY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hearsay not heresy, idiot.

Keep it classy, sir.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always knew there would be an inevitable backlash to the MeToo Movement, but I certainly didn't want it to play out this way with an accused sexual predator, blackout drinker, partisan, liar appointed to the bench. Geez. This country is in the toilet. I'm not sure where we go from here. But definitely feel like a stranger in a strange land today.

All thinking, engaged women, I hope you will vote in the mid-terms.

As a thinking, engaged woman, I certainly will. But I won't necessarily vote the way you want.

DP - That is fine. You vote your way as long as it is informed. I always respect differing opinions and ideology as long as it is thoughtful and informed. That is the beauty of a democracy and I am grateful to live in one. I just fear that the guardrails of our delicate democracy is being chipped away by this administration.

Thank you. I do consider myself highly informed, although my interpretation and prioritization of issues are not usually in alignment with liberals.

As far as chipping away at democracy, I fear a bad precedent will be set if we switch to a presumption of guilt among those accused of crimes. And while I know fully well this is not a criminal trial, neither is it a simple "job interview" as some would have you believe. My opinion is that the president's nominee for the SCOTUS should be confirmed, excepting some heinous act that was proven to be true.

It sets a bad precedent for a judge to commit perjury in front of congress. There is no other way to look at his actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I assumed Feinstein would do her best to keep a perjurer and an sexual assault perpetrator off of our supreme court. So yes

I am confident we will not have a perjurer or sexual assault perpetrator on the SCOTUS.

So you think Mancin and Collins are both a "no" then, because anything else would be false, based on the evidence the FBI wasn't able to probe, but that has been made public.

The FBI spoke with people with first-hand knowledge. Everything else is heresy. And Ford DID change the date of her "assault" from the mid-80s to the early-80s.

Exactly.

The FBI could have asked her why she did that. There may be an explanation. This is why an interview is a basic thing the FBI should have done. Those that think she is lying should have wanted an interview. Maybe it would have led the FBI to prove she was lying and she could have been prosecuted. Maybe it would have proved he was lying, on the other hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always knew there would be an inevitable backlash to the MeToo Movement, but I certainly didn't want it to play out this way with an accused sexual predator, blackout drinker, partisan, liar appointed to the bench. Geez. This country is in the toilet. I'm not sure where we go from here. But definitely feel like a stranger in a strange land today.

All thinking, engaged women, I hope you will vote in the mid-terms.

As a thinking, engaged woman, I certainly will. But I won't necessarily vote the way you want.

DP - That is fine. You vote your way as long as it is informed. I always respect differing opinions and ideology as long as it is thoughtful and informed. That is the beauty of a democracy and I am grateful to live in one. I just fear that the guardrails of our delicate democracy is being chipped away by this administration.

Thank you. I do consider myself highly informed, although my interpretation and prioritization of issues are not usually in alignment with liberals.

As far as chipping away at democracy, I fear a bad precedent will be set if we switch to a presumption of guilt among those accused of crimes. And while I know fully well this is not a criminal trial, neither is it a simple "job interview" as some would have you believe. My opinion is that the president's nominee for the SCOTUS should be confirmed, excepting some heinous act that was proven to be true.

DP. I dunno about chipping away at democracy, but I don't think that tearing the country apart for a particular Supreme Court nominee is a great idea, when another conservative one could be put forward and confirmed before January.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should I call manchin and Collins ?

I sent them emails.

Unless you vote in both their states, they won't care.

That is not necessarily true on a national issue such as this one. I know several people who have been staffers in Senate offices, both sides of the aisle, and they do indeed collect all data in and outside of their states on certain and critical policy issues.

No, not at all.

Yes, it does make a difference.

It's worth trying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I assumed Feinstein would do her best to keep a perjurer and an sexual assault perpetrator off of our supreme court. So yes

I am confident we will not have a perjurer or sexual assault perpetrator on the SCOTUS.

So you think Mancin and Collins are both a "no" then, because anything else would be false, based on the evidence the FBI wasn't able to probe, but that has been made public.

The FBI spoke with people with first-hand knowledge. Everything else is heresy. And Ford DID change the date of her "assault" from the mid-80s to the early-80s.

lol The FBI didn't speak with Ford. All they have from her is heresy.

But her voice doesn’t matter.

Don't you know, facts DO matter.

Heresy doesn't.

For the love .. it’s HEARSAY. NOT HERESY.

But oh, the irony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I assumed Feinstein would do her best to keep a perjurer and an sexual assault perpetrator off of our supreme court. So yes

I am confident we will not have a perjurer or sexual assault perpetrator on the SCOTUS.

So you think Mancin and Collins are both a "no" then, because anything else would be false, based on the evidence the FBI wasn't able to probe, but that has been made public.

The FBI spoke with people with first-hand knowledge. Everything else is heresy. And Ford DID change the date of her "assault" from the mid-80s to the early-80s.

lol The FBI didn't speak with Ford. All they have from her is heresy.

But her voice doesn’t matter.

Don't you know, facts DO matter.

Heresy doesn't.

We're not a theocracy quite yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always knew there would be an inevitable backlash to the MeToo Movement, but I certainly didn't want it to play out this way with an accused sexual predator, blackout drinker, partisan, liar appointed to the bench. Geez. This country is in the toilet. I'm not sure where we go from here. But definitely feel like a stranger in a strange land today.

All thinking, engaged women, I hope you will vote in the mid-terms.

As a thinking, engaged woman, I certainly will. But I won't necessarily vote the way you want.

DP - That is fine. You vote your way as long as it is informed. I always respect differing opinions and ideology as long as it is thoughtful and informed. That is the beauty of a democracy and I am grateful to live in one. I just fear that the guardrails of our delicate democracy is being chipped away by this administration. [/quote


That's quaint. They're driving a MAC truck through the guardrails. And the Russina trolls are now trying to link all of this business to some vast conspiracy to prove that the FBI has been trying to set up or take out Trump, and this was part of it. Now we have the Trump controlling the WH, Congress, and possibly the courts, and people thinking that their fellow citizens are Devils if they don't support his agenda and the FBI is a partisan branch just out to get Trump. Meanwhile, oligarchs continue to do what they do. They saw how well it works for them in Russia and decided to import it here. Win win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always knew there would be an inevitable backlash to the MeToo Movement, but I certainly didn't want it to play out this way with an accused sexual predator, blackout drinker, partisan, liar appointed to the bench. Geez. This country is in the toilet. I'm not sure where we go from here. But definitely feel like a stranger in a strange land today.

All thinking, engaged women, I hope you will vote in the mid-terms.

As a thinking, engaged woman, I certainly will. But I won't necessarily vote the way you want.

DP - That is fine. You vote your way as long as it is informed. I always respect differing opinions and ideology as long as it is thoughtful and informed. That is the beauty of a democracy and I am grateful to live in one. I just fear that the guardrails of our delicate democracy is being chipped away by this administration.

Thank you. I do consider myself highly informed, although my interpretation and prioritization of issues are not usually in alignment with liberals.

As far as chipping away at democracy, I fear a bad precedent will be set if we switch to a presumption of guilt among those accused of crimes. And while I know fully well this is not a criminal trial, neither is it a simple "job interview" as some would have you believe. My opinion is that the president's nominee for the SCOTUS should be confirmed, excepting some heinous act that was proven to be true.

Your statement are at odds with democratic principles. Our representatives are REQUIRED to seriously examine candidates, especially for this court. Apart from this, Kav couldn't get his current job for two years, because of his partisanship, and he didn't earn the best ABA ranking. Before Bork, Doug Ginaburg was pulled from consideration because of innocuous pot use. Two people failed their job interview, and yet Reagan moved on.

Demanding a rubber stamp process - or getting very worked up at others who find that idea abhorrent - is autocratic, not democratic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As far as chipping away at democracy, I fear a bad precedent will be set if we switch to a presumption of guilt among those accused of crimes. And while I know fully well this is not a criminal trial, neither is it a simple "job interview" as some would have you believe. My opinion is that the president's nominee for the SCOTUS should be confirmed, excepting some heinous act that was proven to be true.

Well said.

Too late for that. Merrick Garland. The Republicans are sowing the wind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always knew there would be an inevitable backlash to the MeToo Movement, but I certainly didn't want it to play out this way with an accused sexual predator, blackout drinker, partisan, liar appointed to the bench. Geez. This country is in the toilet. I'm not sure where we go from here. But definitely feel like a stranger in a strange land today.

All thinking, engaged women, I hope you will vote in the mid-terms.

As a thinking, engaged woman, I certainly will. But I won't necessarily vote the way you want.

DP - That is fine. You vote your way as long as it is informed. I always respect differing opinions and ideology as long as it is thoughtful and informed. That is the beauty of a democracy and I am grateful to live in one. I just fear that the guardrails of our delicate democracy is being chipped away by this administration.

Thank you. I do consider myself highly informed, although my interpretation and prioritization of issues are not usually in alignment with liberals.

As far as chipping away at democracy, I fear a bad precedent will be set if we switch to a presumption of guilt among those accused of crimes. And while I know fully well this is not a criminal trial, neither is it a simple "job interview" as some would have you believe. My opinion is that the president's nominee for the SCOTUS should be confirmed, excepting some heinous act that was proven to be true.

So his perjury about the stolen emails is acceptable to you?