Seems like the choice between a presidential republic and absolute democracy in all aspects of anything is a false choice (there are many options and things in between), but I'd be more inclined to the latter than the former. As for Athens, they excluded many first of all, and they had multiple bodies (some of which were elected by lot), law courts, and they elected officials to carry out the duties of governance, they didn't all vote on every single aspect of life or governance either.
Kavanaugh’s Yale roommate believes Ramirez. Kavanaugh's Yale roommate believes the woman accusing him | Daily Mail Online
Yes, it's obviously an open and shut case. So much so that Feinstein sat on it for two months and said that she couldn't be sure that Dr. Ford was telling the truth. I guess all the "corroboration" in 2012 made it difficult for Feinstein to assess and then she had an epiphany on the eve of an important vote.
I mean states aren't people, so that's a weird claim to make, that he commands a majority of ... geography?
LOL. Don't even start with that. We both know why Feinstein waited. And it ain't because she thought Dr. Blasey was lying.
So how is this different from me pointing out that you "are being incredibly hypocritical" to put it in your words?
Just who is Fords lawyer : " First there was a report from June in the Daily Caller that found “a new political advocacy group that vowed to put $5 million behind an effort to stop … Kavanaugh’s confirmation has significant ties to the liberal financier” Soros. What are those ties? Debra Katz, the attorney representingKavanaugh’s accuser — Christine Blasey Ford — is vice chair of the Project on Government Oversight, an organization that has been directly funded by Soros’ Open Society Foundation. Katz is also a hefty Democratic donor, giving thousands of dollars over the years to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other leftist candidates, as Front Page Mag reported. Brett Kavanaugh, Christine Blasey Ford and the links to George Soros
And your point is? Why is it important that "the states elected trump" other than that it is the way our system currently works? hint: because it is currently in your favor? If clinton had won the states but lost the majority vote do you still make the same argument?
What has been kind of overlooked is the lie dector test she took. Who is this FBI agent than gave the test and how qualified was he to administer the test. Since they cost $500 to $1,000 to give who paid for the test
Yep, those doubts certainly exist. Of course, if she brought these allegations up at the time, law enforcement might not be too interested either. Due to the nature of reporting sexual abuse, I think that we need to at least show that we are open to hearing these kinds of cases. As strange as it sounds, people often don’t come forward for years. I’m not saying this should stop the confirmation, but at least let congress make up their own minds with the information.
Dude, now you are just lying. Pretending to know NO ONE would say you were capable of sexually tormenting a women or having drinking problem is quite possibly the dumbest thing i've ever read on this site, and that's saying something. Way to think you know what other people think of you. But keep on lying to yourself. You seem good at it.
Well, if we take Dr. Ford at her word, she finally came forward in the letter to Feinstein, out of concern about Kavanaugh's appointment to the SCOTUS. So, that in of itself, proves that she was making a political move. Otherwise, why not simply deal with Kavanaugh earlier? Let's keep in mind BK has been serving on the 2nd highest court in the land for how many years now? Not the SCOTUS, but pretty close and he's involved in some very consequential rulings in his current role. Why was it only important once he was up for SCOTUS?
The point is that is how we elect our President that is the way it has always been and that was enacted to keep one or two large states full of liberals or conservatives from having complete say so of our President is elected.
Open to hearing them, yes. I am all for allowing Dr. Ford to testify before Congress. Now as for her and her attorney calling the shots, literally what cameras can be on while she's testifying and whom can do the questioning...that makes me very suspicious. There's an old saying I live by and it goes "facts are facts and bullspit lacks." If she has any credibility at all, it will be easily enough to sway 2 or 3 GOP Senators to vote NO. She does not get to put the defendant at any sort of optical, tactical disadvantage at these proceedings. Not only does she not need to, it's un-American at the core.
I mean, the most obvious "insulation" is in the various layers of governance that stymie legislation. For instance, from roughly 2009-2016 Republicans could safely run on "repealing the ACA" honestly without actually having to do it. Democrats can win on healthcare right now without actually having to do anything. Pitting dissatisfaction with the certain issues against the intricacies of our system. The less obvious insulation is deference to executive power and agencies on all sorts of matters, whether it be war or healthcare, knowing full well that blame/credit will be placed on the head of state.
I don't pretend to know. I do know. I'm not a sexual predator. I don't mistreat women. And I don't drink alcohol often. Maybe you're not sure if other people could say those things about you, but I am quite sure they'd never say them about me. Don't keep on lying to us. You're not good at it.
Well now you are changing the argument. Your initial argument was "I am not sure how much you know about Dr. Ford's background, but the "random professor" argument is intellectually dishonest." That has now morphed from that she was somehow politically motivated into the fact that she decided to make a statement that had political ramifications. That is an entirely different argument. You are conflating motive and effect here. Believe it or not, many people don't want to be regularly confronted with the name or image of their attackers. It really is pretty easy for a non-lawyer to avoid a judge on the DC Appeals Court pretty effectively. Much harder to do that for a Supreme Court Justice.
Like him or not, he is probably a fairly brainy dude... If there was any way to disprove his claim I dont think he would have said it. Either anyone who would know different wont say so or it is the actual truth. IMO
After Roy Moore came out in support of Kavanaugh, I didn't think there could be a worse person supporting him. I was wrong:
