Saysumthinfunnymike
VOTE!!!
Franken could have survived that but the Dems wrongly tried to take higher moral ground. There's a lot more to the Bart stuff than there was for Franken.
It was the Dems who told him to step down.
Kavanaugh SCOTUS Thread! Senate Confirms by 50-48 Vote Margin; Kavanaugh Sworn-In
- Thread starter Paper Boi
- Start date
Franken could have survived that but the Dems wrongly tried to take higher moral ground. There's a lot more to the Bart stuff than there was for Franken.
It was the Dems who told him to step down.
Except he is. He is going to rubber stamp every single conservative wet dream. Roe v. Wade, affirmative action, gerrymandering, polling hours, voting rights. He is a Federalist Society conservative operative. There's a reason why he mention getting revenge for the Clinton's.
More importantly, he would be the deciding vote in Gamble v. United States.
If that is overturned, Trump could pardon state crimes that were identical to federal crimes. That would allow him to pardon Manafort.
Kavanaugh was a weak nominee but this was potentially the wrong hill to die on. People aren't as on board with "believe women" over all others as CNN would have you think. The Dems could have done a much better job of laying out their case that Kavanaugh is unfit for the bench but they were lazy and didn't push back on a flawed candidate. The GOP would have seized on each and every failing and the Dems would have caved. If they can't even get Kavanaugh out of there what hope do we have when Ginsburg or Breyer dies? They should be fighting these nominees tooth and nail with actual strategy and not hoping that a social fad will win them the day.
Saysumthinfunnymike
VOTE!!!
Ford is credible because she quite obviously ran in the same circles as him. She didn't remember all the details but she named the people who were at the party and it's the same people who Bart ran with and who he wrote on the calendar for the July 1st party. She never seen these calendars so that in itself is something that only someone who was there would know about.
Once you are able to put Ford in the same house as him.. that's where it starts to become credible. She also knew where his homie was working that summer, Inside Edition actually visited this guy Tim's house and it matched the description of the house she claims this happened in..
Does this prove it happened? No.. but now let's factor in she passed the lie detector test. Let's factor in that she has told this story several times to people before he was up for nomination. Her counselor has records of it. Also, what does she have to gain.. nothing. She's a doctor, she has a good career, if she's found to be lying under oath it could completely ruin her.
Does all this prove anything? No, but it's not a criminal trial. Then you factor in Bart's rapey letters that he wrote and the yearbook shyt and everyone his friends and former friends have said and he does look like a possible drunken rapist..
Why are we gonna put a possible drunken rapist on the highest court? I don't see this as a dangerous precedent. Never mind his behavior displayed in front of the court, his lying under oath and that it's clear he is partisan
GnauzBookOfRhymes
Superstar
to be fair there are instances, for example with keith ellison, whereby allegations that are unproven and can seem somewhat unreliable, don't end up destroying the accused's career/political future etc.
if kavanaugh wasn't a shameless liar (with all of the non assault related questions) then he'd already be voted in. and when you lie in one area, you can't blame anyone but yourself when people think you're lying somewhere else
This.
Disqualifying candidates who haven't been convicted of any wrong doing is a dangerous precedent whether he's a good guy or a bad guy.
Sadly someone just linked a poll showing majority of Dems would not vote for someone who has simply been accused.
GnauzBookOfRhymes
Superstar
America for the L
GnauzBookOfRhymes
Superstar
This.
Disqualifying candidates who haven't been convicted of any wrong doing is a dangerous precedent whether he's a good guy or a bad guy.
Sadly someone just linked a poll showing majority of Dems would not vote for someone who has simply been accused.
virtue signaling...if choice is between a republican and a democrat who has been accused but no evidence and people are suspicious of accuser's true intent, they will vote Dem
Are you and liggins the same poster?This.
Disqualifying candidates who haven't been convicted of any wrong doing is a dangerous precedent whether he's a good guy or a bad guy.
Sadly someone just linked a poll showing majority of Dems would not vote for someone who has simply been accused.
I don't see that as credible. I'd never want my career derailed or stalled over allegations. They have other shyt they could actually pin to him but #metoo is the wave and the Dems were expecting an easy victory. If they were smart they would latch on to what is actually turning people off; his temperament.
I don't think Ford would be ruined if she lied under oath. The allegation can't be proven one way or another. We'll never know who's lying about what happened. That's why it's stupid to try to paint this guy as a rapist when it's easier to paint him as a drunken gambler who is irresponsible with finances and has been bailed out by powerful moneyed individuals before and would be even more susceptible on the highest court in the land.
Are you and liggins the same poster?
Are you an idiot? Do you know how many times I shyt on this subforum making him a mod AND poster of the year?
He would have been confirmed if Feinstein hadn't dropped the bomb at the 11th hour. The Dems were content to roll over and play dead despite all of the weaknesses he displayed as a nominee. The Dems don't do anything to energize their base, they just hope the GOP will do something repugnant enough to get blue voters to the polls.