Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You talk like being on the Supreme Court is a right! It’s not!

That much doubt and the senate should’ve moved on to another judge.

Of course it’s not a right. The assumption of innocence in the absence of incriminating evidence, is indeed a right, however. One person’s word against another’s - especially 35 years later - should not have been the deciding factor, as it apparently was for Democrats.

Not
In
A
Job
Interview

It’s hysterical that you keep trying to diminish that hearing to a “job interview.” The Democratic senators were clear that they would do whatever it took to make sure Kavanaugh wasn’t confirmed. And they did, to the tune of a massively orchestrated hearing in which they grilled Kavanaugh on decades old events that he denied ever happened. That was no “job interview,” and you know it. It was a witch-hunt, which thankfully backfired.

Witch hunts end in death, honey.

According to Merriam-Webster, a witchhunt is "the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (such as political opponents) with unpopular views." Kavanaugh's views were very unpopular with Democrats, and they were desperate and determined to prevent his being seated on the Supreme Court. They threw everything they could at him.

So Trump is conducting a witch hunt of the Squad, huh.

Nice whataboutism, but no.
-DP

Not a whataboutism, just an observation. I'm not the one who posted the definition of a witch hunt. It clearly states exactly what Trump is doing to the Squad. I find that fascinating as I hadn't thought of that before.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People often don’t get really important jobs when there are tons of other candidates and there are doubts about their character from a number of sources.

Yet those sources kept mum for Kavanaugh's entire career but were suddenly able to pull up faded memories when a conservative was about to be placed on the Supreme Court.

Right. That never happens. Victims and witnesses are never silent for decades. /s

In this case, the main witness was a woman who couldn't recall key facts. For all we know, her hazy memories were inaccurate. Democrats didn't care if her statements were factual or not.

Not only that she lied about some pretty big things in her Congressional testimony. She introduced herself to Congress as a psychologist. She is not. It is against the law in California to call yourself if a psychologist if you are not certified, which she is not. EVERYONE in the psychology profession knows this in California because it is a big deal. She is a professor of psychology.

She lied about the addition with a second door. It was not her bedroom but an illegal rental unit. She lied about fear of flying and on and on and on. All the lies were handled with kid gloves because she had been granted victim status.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People often don’t get really important jobs when there are tons of other candidates and there are doubts about their character from a number of sources.

Yet those sources kept mum for Kavanaugh's entire career but were suddenly able to pull up faded memories when a conservative was about to be placed on the Supreme Court.

Right. That never happens. Victims and witnesses are never silent for decades. /s

In this case, the main witness was a woman who couldn't recall key facts. For all we know, her hazy memories were inaccurate. Democrats didn't care if her statements were factual or not.

Please read about trauma memory.

Please admit you are looking more and more foolish as you continue to defend the absolute circus that was that hearing. There is no excuse for anything the Democrats did. None.
-DP

It was a circus. I still don’t understand the delay.
In terms of my doubts about Kavanaugh’s character, I look foolish to you. That’s fine. Collins is toast and the GOP is not far behind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People often don’t get really important jobs when there are tons of other candidates and there are doubts about their character from a number of sources.

“A number of sources”? You mean ONE? The other “accusations” were walked back after it became obvious they were lies. One vague assertion that may or may not have happened over 35 years ago takes a backseat to a lifetime of good works, a stellar career, and hundreds of people vouching for one’s character.

1. The yearbook
2. His finances

I still have to laugh - but with disgust - that anyone would put ANY credence in a HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOK. Boy, was that a low point for the Democrats.

But his calendars are beyond reproach? Give me a break.

Again: using someone’s HIGH SCHOOL calendars against them - 35 years later - is the height of stupidity.

+1 absurd

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People often don’t get really important jobs when there are tons of other candidates and there are doubts about their character from a number of sources.

“A number of sources”? You mean ONE? The other “accusations” were walked back after it became obvious they were lies. One vague assertion that may or may not have happened over 35 years ago takes a backseat to a lifetime of good works, a stellar career, and hundreds of people vouching for one’s character.

1. The yearbook
2. His finances

I still have to laugh - but with disgust - that anyone would put ANY credence in a HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOK. Boy, was that a low point for the Democrats.

But his calendars are beyond reproach? Give me a break.

Again: using someone’s HIGH SCHOOL calendars against them - 35 years later - is the height of stupidity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People often don’t get really important jobs when there are tons of other candidates and there are doubts about their character from a number of sources.

Yet those sources kept mum for Kavanaugh's entire career but were suddenly able to pull up faded memories when a conservative was about to be placed on the Supreme Court.

Right. That never happens. Victims and witnesses are never silent for decades. /s

In this case, the main witness was a woman who couldn't recall key facts. For all we know, her hazy memories were inaccurate. Democrats didn't care if her statements were factual or not.

Please read about trauma memory.

I'm not questioning trauma memory, etc. That's why I don't think we can rely on those memories. Maybe it was another man, another time, another place...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People often don’t get really important jobs when there are tons of other candidates and there are doubts about their character from a number of sources.

Yet those sources kept mum for Kavanaugh's entire career but were suddenly able to pull up faded memories when a conservative was about to be placed on the Supreme Court.

Right. That never happens. Victims and witnesses are never silent for decades. /s

In this case, the main witness was a woman who couldn't recall key facts. For all we know, her hazy memories were inaccurate. Democrats didn't care if her statements were factual or not.

Please read about trauma memory.

Please admit you are looking more and more foolish as you continue to defend the absolute circus that was that hearing. There is no excuse for anything the Democrats did. None.
-DP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People often don’t get really important jobs when there are tons of other candidates and there are doubts about their character from a number of sources.

“A number of sources”? You mean ONE? The other “accusations” were walked back after it became obvious they were lies. One vague assertion that may or may not have happened over 35 years ago takes a backseat to a lifetime of good works, a stellar career, and hundreds of people vouching for one’s character.

1. The yearbook
2. His finances

I still have to laugh - but with disgust - that anyone would put ANY credence in a HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOK. Boy, was that a low point for the Democrats.

But his calendars are beyond reproach? Give me a break.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People often don’t get really important jobs when there are tons of other candidates and there are doubts about their character from a number of sources.

Yet those sources kept mum for Kavanaugh's entire career but were suddenly able to pull up faded memories when a conservative was about to be placed on the Supreme Court.

Right. That never happens. Victims and witnesses are never silent for decades. /s

In this case, the main witness was a woman who couldn't recall key facts. For all we know, her hazy memories were inaccurate. Democrats didn't care if her statements were factual or not.

Please read about trauma memory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People often don’t get really important jobs when there are tons of other candidates and there are doubts about their character from a number of sources.

“A number of sources”? You mean ONE? The other “accusations” were walked back after it became obvious they were lies. One vague assertion that may or may not have happened over 35 years ago takes a backseat to a lifetime of good works, a stellar career, and hundreds of people vouching for one’s character.

1. The yearbook
2. His finances

I still have to laugh - but with disgust - that anyone would put ANY credence in a HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOK. Boy, was that a low point for the Democrats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You talk like being on the Supreme Court is a right! It’s not!

That much doubt and the senate should’ve moved on to another judge.

"Doubt" brought to you by Dianne Feinstein. Written and staged by Christine Blasey-Ford and her lawyers.

“Staged” is your assessment. Please don’t confuse it with fact. Dr. Blasey-Ford had nothing to gain, other than death threats.

Again, you’re in the minority, according to polls.

And what, exactly, was “factual” about Ford’s testimony?
-DP

Doesn’t need to be. It was part of a picture that brought doubt about his character in the eyes of a majority of Americans.

Wow. There we have it. It doesn’t matter at all to you that Ford’s testimony may not have even been factual. All that matters to you is presenting an image to the American people that could quite possibly be built on lies. Thank you for admitting it.

+1 The creation of doubt was their goal.

It didn’t need to be “created”. It’s there. The committee presented it as per constitutional mandate.

The committee could easily have presented this sooner instead of waiting for the dramatic optics they so craved. And you know it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People often don’t get really important jobs when there are tons of other candidates and there are doubts about their character from a number of sources.

Yet those sources kept mum for Kavanaugh's entire career but were suddenly able to pull up faded memories when a conservative was about to be placed on the Supreme Court.

Right. That never happens. Victims and witnesses are never silent for decades. /s

In this case, the main witness was a woman who couldn't recall key facts. For all we know, her hazy memories were inaccurate. Democrats didn't care if her statements were factual or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You talk like being on the Supreme Court is a right! It’s not!

That much doubt and the senate should’ve moved on to another judge.

Of course it’s not a right. The assumption of innocence in the absence of incriminating evidence, is indeed a right, however. One person’s word against another’s - especially 35 years later - should not have been the deciding factor, as it apparently was for Democrats.

Not
In
A
Job
Interview

It’s hysterical that you keep trying to diminish that hearing to a “job interview.” The Democratic senators were clear that they would do whatever it took to make sure Kavanaugh wasn’t confirmed. And they did, to the tune of a massively orchestrated hearing in which they grilled Kavanaugh on decades old events that he denied ever happened. That was no “job interview,” and you know it. It was a witch-hunt, which thankfully backfired.

Witch hunts end in death, honey.

According to Merriam-Webster, a witchhunt is "the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (such as political opponents) with unpopular views." Kavanaugh's views were very unpopular with Democrats, and they were desperate and determined to prevent his being seated on the Supreme Court. They threw everything they could at him.

So Trump is conducting a witch hunt of the Squad, huh.

Nice whataboutism, but no.
-DP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People often don’t get really important jobs when there are tons of other candidates and there are doubts about their character from a number of sources.

“A number of sources”? You mean ONE? The other “accusations” were walked back after it became obvious they were lies. One vague assertion that may or may not have happened over 35 years ago takes a backseat to a lifetime of good works, a stellar career, and hundreds of people vouching for one’s character.

1. The yearbook
2. His finances

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You talk like being on the Supreme Court is a right! It’s not!

That much doubt and the senate should’ve moved on to another judge.

"Doubt" brought to you by Dianne Feinstein. Written and staged by Christine Blasey-Ford and her lawyers.

“Staged” is your assessment. Please don’t confuse it with fact. Dr. Blasey-Ford had nothing to gain, other than death threats.

Again, you’re in the minority, according to polls.

And what, exactly, was “factual” about Ford’s testimony?
-DP

Doesn’t need to be. It was part of a picture that brought doubt about his character in the eyes of a majority of Americans.

Wow. There we have it. It doesn’t matter at all to you that Ford’s testimony may not have even been factual. All that matters to you is presenting an image to the American people that could quite possibly be built on lies. Thank you for admitting it.

+1 The creation of doubt was their goal.

+100