Reply to well no wonder Amy Chua defended Brett Kavanugh so emphatically

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "well no wonder Amy Chua defended Brett Kavanugh so emphatically"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]“Falsely accused”. You seem pretty sure about that. Were you there that night? 
[/quote]
Don’t need to be. Blasey ford appeared to be an early onset dementia patient.
She certainly didn’t convince any republicans.[/quote]

MAGAs don’t care about facts or truth so no surprise there.

[/quote]

Facts?  Truth?  
How about presumption of innocence?  Blasey Ford was unable to provide any actual proof of her claims.  Zilch.  
She had no facts.  And, it appeared that her truth was just that - HER truth.  Not THE truth.  [/quote]

We will never know since it will never be investigated. So you can’t say if he was “falsely” accused or not. But the MAGAs still will try to tear her down.

Why are the daggers out? Afraid of the truth?

[/quote]

How, exactly, do you suggest investigating a 35 yr. old allegation?  Anyone who might have some information has been invited (repeatedly) to come forward.  No one has.  No one can corroborate this allegation.  In the meantime, [b]Kavanaugh has had six FBI investigations[/b], all of which turned up nothing.  No one is trying to "tear down" Blasey Ford, but you simply can't argue with the FACT that she had no evidence or witnesses to back up her claim.[/quote]

You are so f-ing clueless it’s painful. How on earth would those background checks uncover this incident?

[/quote]

Speaking of clueless - please do share how yet another FBI investigation would "uncover" this ALLEGED incident?  I'm genuinely curious.  Since no one has voluntarily come forward to corroborate Ford's testimony, then exactly what would you suggest the FBI do to "uncover" a vague, 35 year old, alleged incident?  Do you realize how utterly crazy you sound?[/quote]

The incident has already been reported so no need to “uncover” it, bonehead. It only would have only come out during a background check if BK added CBF to his list of interviewees. Don’t think he did. And if there were other incidents I’m sure his buddies wouldn’t have brought them up. Look at the hilarious way they handled the yearbook. Lying POSs.

The FBI could seek out people to interview - not just sit around waiting for someone to come forward. Look at other evidence (calendar).

Funny how you and the PPs are so quick to decide there is nothing there. Quite telling.

[/quote]

That you keep coming back to his *high school* yearbook as "evidence" - not to mention a calendar that a teenaged boy kept - makes me cringe in embarrassment for you.  It is so pathetic that we had U.S. Senators dissecting a teenager's yearbook for telltale "clues" that might make their case.  I didn't think I'd ever see the day when our lawmakers would stoop so low and make themselves look so incredibly foolish.

Look, I'm sorry this didn't work out the way you wanted, i.e. I'm sorry an innocent man wasn't caught up in your partisan witch hunt.  Thank goodness common sense prevailed.  [/quote]

Yes, we know you want to brush it all aside as quickly as you can.

Amoral scum. All of you.

[/quote]

LOL!  Kavanaugh has actually been confirmed - despite your best attempts at derailing his nomination. It's been almost a year.
It is time for you folks to move on.  Or, is there an effort to impeach Kavanaugh too?  [/quote]

Yes, the incident was very clearly brushed aside and he was confirmed. Without any moral hesitation on your part. We understand. You wanted your pro-birther justice at any cost and have no moral qualms about it because you are amoral scum.

And - oh look - he's having trouble again with another young lady. Surprise, surprise.

[/quote]

What lady is he “having trouble with,” you absolute moron?  Link??  And btw, I’m pro-choice but was very much for his confirmation.  You simply don’t decide someone’s fate based on a nebulous 35+ year old accusation with zero evidence.  [b]He’s innocent until and unless PROVEN guilty, which he most definitely was not[/b].  That’s a basic part of our Constitution, something *you* would dearly love to “brush aside.”
-DP[/quote]

All I wanted was a legit investigation. The speed and voracity of the GOP to "brush aside" was disturbing. 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics