Hopefully the FBI is following you.css75 wrote:No need for that, Most Dems do that as part of every day life, you are a classic example with your name calling and obnoxious posts.mainejeff wrote:
Let me know when we elect a Democrat for President of the United States of America that promotes hatred and violence on a daily basis (or ever).
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
If they are they got nothing. How about you?mainejeff wrote:Hopefully the FBI is following you.css75 wrote:
No need for that, Most Dems do that as part of every day life, you are a classic example with your name calling and obnoxious posts.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Exit polling suggests the issue was a net negative for Republicans. Same with public polling prior to the election. Polling indicates that more people believe Blasey Ford than believe Kavanaugh and also indicates that more people think Kavanaugh should not have been confirmed than believe he should have been confirmed.CAA Flagship wrote:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 889770002/
So, Mr. Conservative, are you backing Merrick Garland for the Ginsburg vacancy? Or do you prefer a member of the National Lawyers Guild? God, you’re a hypocrite.JohnStOnge wrote:Exit polling suggests the issue was a net negative for Republicans. Same with public polling prior to the election. Polling indicates that more people believe Blasey Ford than believe Kavanaugh and also indicates that more people think Kavanaugh should not have been confirmed than believe he should have been confirmed.CAA Flagship wrote:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 889770002/
It was not a net positive for Republicans.
Yes I know Republicans gained Senate seats. But that was always the likelihood due to the nature of the seats that came up this time Kavanaugh or no Kavanaugh. Meanwhile, overall, women voted for Democrats over Republicans in House races by 59% to 40%. There are no stats like that for Senate races but I'd be confident betting that, nationally, women voted overwhelmingly Democrat in those races as well.
Don't say I didn't tell you.89Hen wrote:OK guys, you take take this FWIW. I'm not sure how many of you know people who directly know either Ford or Kavanaugh. I talked to no less than seven people today who directly know one or the other. It's the same story over and over and over. Kavanaugh is described as the cleanest guy you've ever met. Seems like he's known for a long time that he wanted this path and lived the path that would get him here. Ford on the other hand had a reputation of being a VERY promiscuous girl in HS. I've heard stories just today that would make you doubt anything she had to say. These were from people that do not like Trump at all. That aren't staunch conservatives.
Based on the first person accounts I've heard, this is a political witch hunt. Period. End of story.
Ford was the key witness against Kavanaugh. In detail, she said Kavanaugh tried to remove her clothing during a high school party, but had trouble because she was wearing a bathing suit underneath them. She said she ran off when Kavanaugh friend Mark Judge jumped on top of them and they fell off the bed. Kavanaugh denied the accusation and, on Oct. 6, the Senate confirmed him to the Supreme Court.
The man who claims he may have had the encounter with Ford was one of 40 people committee investigators interviewed as part of its probe into the sexual allegations against Kavanaugh, which was done alongside the FBI background check that was compiled in a matter of days.
The report summarizes an interview with a Yale grad who said that a member of Kavanaugh’s fraternity -- who was not Kavanaugh -- had a reputation for exposing himself publicly.
The man was interviewed after Deborah Ramirez told the New Yorker that Kavanaugh had thrust his penis in her face when they were at Yale. She said she was drunk and wasn’t sure it was Kavanaugh until she thought about it for a week and spoke to her attorney. Kavanaugh vehemently denied her accusation.
The reports says the man, whose name was redacted, also provided a yearbook photo of the frat brother exposing himself.
The report says the man said he had personally witnessed the flasher expose himself at a party and that the flasher was in the same residential college as Ramirez.
Only in liberals' tear filled eyes Jack.houndawg wrote:Spin it how you want to spin it but SCOTUS lost stature and prestige big-time on this one.
89Hen wrote:Only in liberals' tear filled eyes Jack.houndawg wrote:Spin it how you want to spin it but SCOTUS lost stature and prestige big-time on this one.
Yes I saw that. And what that is is a testament to the fact that conservatives cannot rely on the judges they appoint voting how they think they will vote. Liberals have a lot better luck with that.Pwns wrote:https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/ ... ase-845056
Blah blah blah theocracy blah blah blah hates wimmin blah blah blah blah blah blah anti-choice....
Pwns wrote:https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/ ... ase-845056
Blah blah blah theocracy blah blah blah hates wimmin blah blah blah blah blah blah anti-choice....
Not in this case Cleetus. When I saw this news I knew that it would hurt the lynch mob liberals to the core. A judge that looks at law, heaven forbid.Chizzang wrote:Pwns wrote:https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/ ... ase-845056
Blah blah blah theocracy blah blah blah hates wimmin blah blah blah blah blah blah anti-choice....
You're getting nuttier by the week...
interesting to watch
I guess they can rely on judges to consider the law and not party politics...the horror!JohnStOnge wrote:Yes I saw that. And what that is is a testament to the fact that conservatives cannot rely on the judges they appoint voting how they think they will vote. Liberals have a lot better luck with that.Pwns wrote:https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/ ... ase-845056
Blah blah blah theocracy blah blah blah hates wimmin blah blah blah blah blah blah anti-choice....
Agreed. Why is this a bad thing? The justices looked at the case and judged it appropriately based on the law, not on their political views nor the views of the folks who nominated them in the first place. Isn't this what we want?Ibanez wrote:I guess they can rely on judges to consider the law and not party politics...the horror!JohnStOnge wrote:
Yes I saw that. And what that is is a testament to the fact that conservatives cannot rely on the judges they appoint voting how they think they will vote. Liberals have a lot better luck with that.
Hen,89Hen wrote:Not in this case Cleetus. When I saw this news I knew that it would hurt the lynch mob liberals to the core. A judge that looks at law, heaven forbid.Chizzang wrote:
You're getting nuttier by the week...
interesting to watch
You're asking a lot of me.Chizzang wrote:Side note:
If you'll remember I'm the one who said supreme court justices are not an issue
as long as they've earned the seat - I don't care who's selected generally speaking
particularly as a middle aged white male - supreme court justices are meaningless to me
I think JSO was trying to keep his "conservative" card by slandering the liberal judges.GannonFan wrote:Agreed. Why is this a bad thing? The justices looked at the case and judged it appropriately based on the law, not on their political views nor the views of the folks who nominated them in the first place. Isn't this what we want?Ibanez wrote: I guess they can rely on judges to consider the law and not party politics...the horror!
So I get a sardonic remark about my sardonic remark about people over-dramatizing the SCOTUS appointment, and then when 89Hen says he disagrees you go on to basically say...people make too big a deal over SCOTUS appointments.Chizzang wrote:Hen,89Hen wrote: Not in this case Cleetus. When I saw this news I knew that it would hurt the lynch mob liberals to the core. A judge that looks at law, heaven forbid.
I'm simply commenting on his inability to actually post something worth reading
Side note:
If you'll remember I'm the one who said supreme court justices are not an issue
as long as they've earned the seat - I don't care who's selected generally speaking
particularly as a middle aged white male - supreme court justices are meaningless to me
Pwns wrote:So I get a sardonic remark about my sardonic remark about people over-dramatizing the SCOTUS appointment, and then when 89Hen says he disagrees you go on to basically say...people make too big a deal over SCOTUS appointments.Chizzang wrote:
Hen,
I'm simply commenting on his inability to actually post something worth reading
Side note:
If you'll remember I'm the one who said supreme court justices are not an issue
as long as they've earned the seat - I don't care who's selected generally speaking
particularly as a middle aged white male - supreme court justices are meaningless to me
I basically agree with what Ibanez says, BTW.
I was triggered by something you said?Chizzang wrote:Pwns wrote:
So I get a sardonic remark about my sardonic remark about people over-dramatizing the SCOTUS appointment, and then when 89Hen says he disagrees you go on to basically say...people make too big a deal over SCOTUS appointments.
I basically agree with what Ibanez says, BTW.
it was AZ and 93 who were disturbed by my lack of concern about supreme court appointments...
I think because I was being a smug prick
and asked any middle aged white guy would care who gets appointed..?
That attitude always triggers AZ
also I think if you search this thread you'll find me asking what is wrong with Kavanaugh..?
He seems fine to me
No we dontJohnStOnge wrote:Guys, you know very well that the White Evangelical Christian wing nuts who supported Trump and Kavanaugh would've expected Kavanaugh to vote the other way.
Yes you do. Why pretend?CID1990 wrote:No we dontJohnStOnge wrote:Guys, you know very well that the White Evangelical Christian wing nuts who supported Trump and Kavanaugh would've expected Kavanaugh to vote the other way.
