Kavanaugh Hearing

This is the Uber dumb part. They probably have a half a dozen qualified candidates they could put up, but they are wasting all this energy and capital on a guy who is clearly flawed. They have just dug their heels in and said the dems won’t win. Now the dems win either way, either they get him booted, or more likely they energize the dem base for November when he gets confirmed. But trump doesn’t do compromise or backing down, so here we are.

By the way, the other reason we are here that hasn’t been talked about enough is McConnell changing the senate rules from 60 votes needed to 50. 60 requires some compromise and thought, 50 encourages partisan nonsense. He and the president thought they could ram it through with their 52 votes, and didn’t stop to consider what was happening around him.

 

Data from where? What data are you following?

 

Who, billy bob?

 

Let’s see someone accuse him of sexually assaulting them 35 years ago with no location, no date, and no independent evidence other than evidence provided from the mouth of the accuser, and see what his temperament is. Especially after he and his family are drug through the mud and receive death threats.

So easy to cast stones to score partisan points.

 

Rare for me too. I am a proper punctuation and grammatical murderer on here. So much so, I am constantly editing my posts bc it bothers me

 

You mean like what has been done to Dr. Ford?

 

On the flip side, if 5 more Dems had voted to invoke cloture on Gorsuch (a relatively non-controversial nominee who probably would have gotten 90+ votes as recently as the 1990s), Kavanaugh would have probably already been pulled because it would be too toxic to invoke the nuclear option and reinterpret Senate Rule XXII to require a simple majority vote to invoke cloture on his nomination.

But, Senate Rule XXII having already been reinterpreted, now they don't actually have to do anything because the Senate follows its own precedents.

 

Whats that based on?
I admit, I haven’t read all 4500+ posts. What number discusses this fanatical loyalty to dems? Actually provide page number also - I’m busy.

Oh and thanks - will do!

 

Undoubtedly you have never seen my wife of 61 years with a butcher knife looking darts at you

 

You are at least the fourth person on here who has misrepresented what the people she said who were there actually said. It wasn't denying, it was not remembering a party form 37 years ago. The only folks denying are Kavanaugh and Judge, the two implicated in her allegation.

 

Apologize for a crime you didn’t commit, what a concept. No proof he did anything wrong, but he should apologize and watch his career float down the drain. If he apologized, he would be GONE. You already consider him guilty, so you would treat his apology as evidence/admission of his guilt. Why did he apologize if he wasn’t guilty?

Her testimony was not only disputed by Kavanaugh’s testimony, it was disputed by the other 4 people who were allegedly at the party. 5 people say no party happened. Ford says the party happened. But Ford isn’t lying or mistaken, so it must be the other 5 people. Plausibility scale? Not very likely that all 5 people, including the other three guests, would forget about a party where she left early by running out the door.

Kavanaugh was guilty in your eyes as soon as her story came out.

 

Flake is the one who said a week Trump just did what Flake requested

 

@gator_lawyer

[="92gator, post: 10710475, member: 7909"]...

tell us about this 'evidence' that supposedly contradicted her (Kinsnan's) story...

And btw, K'man executed an affidavit saying JW raped her.

Arent you 'on record'---just a few pages ago, in this very thread, claiming that that is *proof* that that therefore happened????

@gator_lawyer

 

Didn’t some Democrats say it could be done in three days?

 

We'll start here:
https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2018_generic_congressional_vote-6185.html

 

LOL. You're kidding, right?

 

You are splitting hairs but either way they will not back her up

 

I believe this was widely discussed on here at the time. Gorsuch was a layup to replace Scalia and Schumer should have let him go through not let Mitch go nuclear. But he let his butthurt over Garland be a petard that he hoisted himself on.

Not a chance in hell they’d go nuclear on Kav as the first one, he’d already be toast and a new nominee proferred with the nuclear question yet to be called.

One of the many reasons Schumer is a moron.

 

Thought Harry changed the numbers rule