My politics have nothing to do with understanding what the basic role of an investigator is vs. the role of a prosecutor, which you’ve confused for the past several pages, so you’ve now deflected it to a jurisdiction question. I’ve also said on this board numerous times that despite our political differences I thought Kavanaugh was more than qualified and should be confirmed until 1) he seemingly lied about whether he knew he had received stolen emails, and 2) these allegations arose, which I said needed investigation. And I also criticized Feinstein for how she handled them, but you can’t punish alleged victims for her actions. And I’ve never assumed he was guilty, not in one post of mine will you find that conclusion. I think those are pretty reasonable, middle of the fairway positions from someone who expects his SCOTUS to be beyond reproach ethically. When have you ever been remotely that objective?
It’s 5 per witness per Senator. There are 21 Senators on the Committee. That’s 105 minutes (plus untimed statements from the witness) for each witness.
As said before, I understand people doing the "lesser of two evils" thing. HRC was a terrible choice... if not for Trump, she would hold the disapproval record for all POTUS candidates since that has been measured. And I appreciate your response even if I don't agree with you on some major policy issues, and even though my response will be fairly harsh on some issues here. On the positive side from Trump, I can definitely see supporting him for conservative judicial appointments. And he has kept the economic trends positive. Not sure what else can be cited. He has made a complete mess of his cabinet, running off his best appointments and driving staff to try to save the country from him, based on accounts related from three different authors. Trade deficits are not fundamentally a problem. That's a gross misunderstanding of economics, and I don't mean that as a slight on you, but it most certainly should be viewed that way wrt anyone working on trade policy or economic policy who supports his tariff actions. The lesson wrt imposing harsh tariffs has been learned in the past. We don't need to learn it again. For me personally, as I have stated many times in here, Trump is so fundamentally misaligned with American values and Christian values, I really don't understand how anyone could actively support him from either viewpoint. From a Christian perspective, his behavior and rhetoric is completely antithetical to Christ's message. We should all recognize that by now. From an American perspective, he shows zero understanding of rights or the constitution, and appears incapable of upholding his oath to defend the constitution because of that lack of understanding, and probably a thorough lack of concern. The immigration issue has been hashed out many times in here, and I have no problem with enforcing borders but I have an enormous problem with demonizing and denigrating good hard working people that are here doing very hard work that Americans can't and won't do, while the only reason they are considered "illegal" or undocumented is because our political leaders would rather play games with their lives than make common sense policy aligning work visas to labor demand. Aside from not using common sense to address an easily addressable "problem", I have an even bigger issue with the very obvious play by the Trump campaign/administration to racists in denigrating Latinos, African Americans and Muslims. Quite honestly it is very disheartening on a personal level to see racism increase by intent of our POTUS. My family and friends deserve better than this. The country deserves better. When you tell America and tell the world that armed racists who murdered someone in Charlottesville are "fine people", you've sent a message supporting violent racism and hatred... supporting the very same people he successfully courted in his campaign. Neo-Nazis, KKK and the like are NOT fine people. And from "sons of bitches" to repeated "low IQ" descriptions of black Americans, to describing countries as "shit hole countries" and asking why we can't get immigrants from Norway, the message is very clear. His appeal to bigotry and xenophobia has worked for him as hate group membership and hate crimes have risen since his campaign started, and Americans are now a good deal more likely to be murdered by a white supremacist than a Muslim terrorist. I raise all this in hope that good Americans who may support him for valid political reasons for themselves, will see how wrong, immoral and divisive the other aspects of his campaign and presidency are to this country, and decide that we really need better. Peace.
I hate to watch you even go down the rabbit hole. We both know if the FBI did investigate this, #1 much like the Anita Hill investigation, they would not return with any conclusions because this happened 36 YEARS AGO and #2 as soon as the FBI comes back with this, Ford and her attorney will cry bloody murder and unfairness just like they have the entire way thus far. They’re not going to stop until he is stopped. Or at least that is their plan.
Character assassination is SOP for defendants in sexual assault and rape accusations and a huge reason why most victims never report their attackers. To assume the Senate would do anything other than run the standard playbook on her is naive, particularly in light of them asking to have someone other than Senators on this committee doing the questioning. If they want to attack her, they should have to do it themselves and not have a surrogate to do it.
I’ll repeat the caution I alluded to in my other post on the politics of this. I suspect Democrats may be miscalculating by self-immolating over a number of issues that folks who generally aren’t real excited with Trump care about. It’s anecdotal, but I’m pretty sure I know more people who would vote for Trump in an election held today than I did on Election Day...
You seem to be confusing deflection with clarification... No worries, bud... We aren't punishing victims for Feinstein's actions... They're being granted a hearing... You're asking the committee to give them something that they aren't entitled to... Refusal to do so, is not "punishment."
"When I was in high school – and I went to an all boys Catholic high school, a judgment (ph) high school, where I was focused on academics and athletics, going to church every Sunday at Little Flower, working on my service projects, and friendship, friendship with my fellow classmates and friendship with girls from the local all girls Catholic schools. And yes, there were parties. And the drinking age was 18, and yes, the seniors were legal and had beer there. And yes, people might have had too many beers on occasion and people generally in high school – I think all of us have probably done things we look back on in high school and regret or cringe a bit, but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about an allegation of sexual assault. I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone. I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years there after"
Republican mid-term candidates are taking an absolute beating in the polls with women voters, so I'm thinking you're making a miscalculation here.
All the Democrats have to do to beat Trump, is not lose their minds over every little thing... You don't even need Russia... you don't have to call him racist against Mexicans, you don't have to call him anti-Black or anti-Muslim... you don't need to call him a bigot... Just say he wants to build a wall that's expensive and hasn't delivered, he's so insecure he feels the need to literally defend his penis size in the middle of a nationally-televised debate, he's against free trade, and the deficit has gotten worse... All of these are completely fair criticisms... If the media spent all their time covering that instead of Russia and Stormy Daniels... his approval rating would likely be lower than it is, now...
Possibly, but women have a greater tendency to vote Democrat, anyways... Is this beating, any greater than usual?
If he had stopped after the first paragraph, I may see your point. But he spends just as much time in the 2nd paragraph telling you the non-choir boy stuff. Even mentioning he did things he regrets and that would make a person cringe. By the way, you did read the 2nd paragraph, right?
Anita Hill is a different case, though... Judge Thomas and Anita Hill, I believe, were both federal employees at the time of the alleged incident... Correct me if I'm wrong, but this was about two federal employees being investigated for an alleged crime in an alleged federal setting.. They had a professional relationship in a Federal setting... Apples and Oranges...
GOP poised for midterm wipeout as 'blue wave' scenario gives Democrats a 12-point lead: NBC-WSJ poll Moreover, Democrats have generated wide advantages among key swing groups within the electorate. The poll shows them leading by 31 percentage points among independents, 33 points among moderates and 12 points among white women. Among white college graduates, a group Republicans carried by nine points in 2014 mid-term elections, Republicans now trail by 15 points. Among white women without college degrees, a group Republicans carried by 10 points in 2014, Republicans now trail by five points. ------------------------------- It's certainly fair to point out that we're in the middle of the storm right, so things can change in six weeks.
I don’t really think of the hearing as something that the victim is “entitled” to. Matter of fact, I’ve never said she was entitled to one. I think more along the lines that an investigation is something the American public is entitled to. It’s the responsibility of the judiciary committee to have the claims investigated, and then a hearing held after they’ve received the findings if the findings dictate that a hearing be held. Just like happened with Anita Hill. Except in this case, McConnell is so hell bent on getting a SCOTUS confirmation before the midterms he conveniently skipped the investigation step because of political expediency. Hill’s investigation took all of 3 days, or about half time that Disingenuous Mitch has been effing around negotiating the terms of the hearing with the accuser. So to me, this really has nothing to do with what the accuser is “entitled” to. She could file a criminal complaint tomorrow, that’s what she’s entitled to. G’night.....bud.
Well that's not fair... 1. They haven't questioned her, yet... 2. It's almost as though you're suggesting character assassination of the accuser is the only quality defense for a sexual assault charge...
I read the second paragraph. I read distancing language where he talked about "people" drinking, but he conveniently left himself out.
Thanks for the clarification... Anything else?... I'll admit, I'm quite uneducated on the Thomas-Anita Hill case...
