Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[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.

We're not a theocracy quite yet.

But we are a corpocracy and and on our way to an oligarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearsay not heresy, idiot.

Keep it classy, sir.

Learn to spell, ma'am.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's acceptable to Flake.

I guess it's not "heinous". IMO, it kinda sorta is.

[Anonymous]

This is the key part of Kavanaugh's testimony, beyond his affect, that disqualifies him. I think this is what got Lisa Murkowski.

This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.

This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades. This grotesque and coordinated character assassination will dissuade confident and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country. And as we all know in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around.

He made a threat, under oath toward those he sees as his political opponents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is certainly the nut of it all. It's not a criminal trial and much more than a job interview. Here we have a credible accusation of sexual violence, and the response of such an accusation is not a full and comprehensive investigation. It was an extended background check, the scope of which dictated by the White House. As a result, the accused will sit on the bench, without due process given to the accuser. Half of this country will feel like justice was served. The other half will feel as you do. It's a mess. The end result - A stain on the Supreme Court. Well a second stain - Thomas was the first.

[Anonymous]

The investigation was INCOMPLETE.

The investigation they did do DID NOT EXONERATE HIM.

The investigation also found he DID NOT TELL THE TRUTH IN THE HEARINGS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is certainly the nut of it all. It's not a criminal trial and much more than a job interview. Here we have a credible accusation of sexual violence, and the response of such an accusation is not a full and comprehensive investigation. It was an extended background check, the scope of which dictated by the White House. As a result, the accused will sit on the bench, without due process given to the accuser. Half of this country will feel like justice was served. The other half will feel as you do. It's a mess. The end result - A stain on the Supreme Court. Well a second stain - Thomas was the first.

*wasn't served

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's acceptable to Flake.

I guess it's not "heinous". IMO, it kinda sorta is.

Quite apart from the sexual assault allegations (which seem totally credible to me), his paid off debt, his anger, his pettiness and his vengeful point of view, his perjury - these should all be massively disqualifying.

[Anonymous]

I can't believe kavanaugh thinks we should be sympathetic and vote him in because he's a family man and its in the best interest of his family and their name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe kavanaugh thinks we should be sympathetic and vote him in because he's a family man and its in the best interest of his family and their name.

I can't believe you think that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The investigation was INCOMPLETE.

The investigation they did do DID NOT EXONERATE HIM.

The investigation also found he DID NOT TELL THE TRUTH IN THE HEARINGS.

Warren was able to say ^^^^THAT MUCH^^^ about the investigation because the judicial committee attorneys said that was the most she could say.

The republican senators who vote YES are going to have a lot to answer for.

REMEMBER when women couldn't vote? It was less than 100 years ago that women COULD NOT VOTE. First woman elected to the senate was in 1932.

We are not going away. Grabbing women, trying to assault them, those crimes ARE being punished more severely. We are changing the US and the GOP will go down on the wrong side of history on this. The GOP will not be able to recover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

WTF

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:22 should go live in Russia for a year to see how it really is over there. You'll come home to kiss American soil.

Do you really not understand that the GOP is trying to import that style of governance here?

You seem to have no clue what you're talking about. Trump is polar opposite to all things Russia. Seems it was our last President who wanted to have more "flexibility" to make nice with the Russians "after the election". Imagine that.

Trump was elected by Putin.[i] His entire cabinet is connected to Russia to the tune of millions. Who paid off Brett’s debt? Who is paying for his PR campaign? Is it Russia via some “American” companies, like how the NRA is funded mostly by Russia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:22 should go live in Russia for a year to see how it really is over there. You'll come home to kiss American soil.

Do you really not understand that the GOP is trying to import that style of governance here?

You seem to have no clue what you're talking about. Trump is polar opposite to all things Russia. Seems it was our last President who wanted to have more "flexibility" to make nice with the Russians "after the election". Imagine that.

Yep. This crowd is hilariously uninformed

[Anonymous]

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.

Bullsh1t. If facts mattered at all, then there would be a full investigation, not that sham/coverup. But the GOP doesn't want facts or the truth. They just want their SJC seat. At any cost.