Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First, if there was photo evidence of Kavanaugh as there was with Franken, she might have a different take on it.
Second, finding Ford believable, only means that you think SHE believes what she is saying. And did any of the republicans say that they didnt find Kavanaugh believable, as you did?
I found him very believable.
You have every right to find him believeable. I did not.
But witness testimony IS evidence that we are allowed to consider. That is all I'm saying. All this 'no evidence' is incorrect when it comes to Ford.
Witness testimony was the evidence. I believed her. You believed him. That's our right.
There was no photo evidence of Franken abusing anyone sexually. None.
First, if there was photo evidence of Kavanaugh as there was with Franken, she might have a different take on it.
Second, finding Ford believable, only means that you think SHE believes what she is saying. And did any of the republicans say that they didnt find Kavanaugh believable, as you did?
I found him very believable.
He was awful and unbelievable in my opinion, but it doesn't matter. "He didn't act like I expected him to act," is kangaroo court stuff. It's completely irrelevant how you or I expect somebody to act. Junk analysis. The human experience is varied.
The Democrats are always one step ahead. They don't dwell on battles lost. That's why they let Manchin vote yes. Better to keep him around for when he's needed than sacrifice him for a lost cause. It's a long game for them and they're very good at it.
Are you freakin kidding me? All they do is whine about what happened decades ago..
Ford isn't under consideration for the Supreme Court and you provide NO evidence for your claims about her. I believe both Ford and Kavanaugh. I think he sexually assaulted her but was blind drunk and has no memory of it. But putting that aside. Kavanaugh lied to congress in 2004 and 2006, he lied last week under oath several times, about "Renate Alumnius," "Devil's Triangle," and "boofing,"
And isn't it funny how everyone including Susan Collins who believe in "due process" for Brett Kavanaugh said that Al Franken needed to resign without any proof of wrongdoing. She's just another partisan hack who tries to dance on both sides of the fence at the same time.
Seriously? Literally thousands upon thousands of posts, many with links, and you are still looking for proof already provided about CBF's lies, inconsistencies, and "assistance" in prepping her story. As many posts also calling out the whole yearbook terms of the 80's being very different from today. You could be spoonfed 100% truth and if it conflicts with what you want to believe, oh well then.
Franken had a fairly damning photograph. I don't like the guy, but don't necessarily think he needed to resign over it. His choice tho, so it's moot.
He was awful and unbelievable in my opinion, but it doesn't matter. "He didn't act like I expected him to act," is kangaroo court stuff. It's completely irrelevant how you or I expect somebody to act. Junk analysis. The human experience is varied.
How would you want him to act while being accused of being a GANG RAPIST?
What I don't understand is that when Trump picked Kavanaugh, many conservatives were disappointed as he has a track record of being less conservative than the others on the short list. Yet Dems lost their minds about this pick. Did they think Trump was going to nominate another Ginsberg or someone left of center?
Some folks are rightfully concerned about 'losing' the American democratic system, concerned about middle class Americans being squeezed out of the electoral process by organized economic power, concerned about the avalanche of big money to our elections, & so on...
Enter (extreme) stage right: Brett Kavanaugh
Quote:
THE ELEVATION OF D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court could have a profound impact on the rules governing the American democratic system.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has swiftly remade the landscape of American politics, gutting 1960s-era civil rights laws restricting voter suppression, sharply weakening labor unions, and deregulating the campaign finance system to allow for wealthy individuals and corporations to exercise greater influence over elected representatives. With President Donald Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court, that influence is poised to grow.
...In the minds of conservative legal strategists, the First Amendment’s protections for free speech can be harnessed to justify virtually any intervention in politics. This expansive view of free speech has been used to oppose or undo any campaign finance regulation, any rule enhancing the political strength of organized labor, any requirement for donor disclosure, or any prohibition on the transfer of billions of dollars into the political system.
In decision after decision, Kavanaugh has embraced this theory and wielded the First Amendment as a cudgel to unravel decades of laws designed to ensure that ordinary Americans are not squeezed out of the electoral process by organized economic power. ...
Brett Kavanaugh, Who Has Ruled Against Campaign Finance Regulations, Could Bring an Avalanche of Big Money to Elections
How would you want him to act while being accused of being a GANG RAPIST?
I didn't mind that he was upset. I just found him not credible. I also found his accuser not credible, in more subtle ways. Phrases like "uproarious laughter," and her take on Judge's demeanor in the supermarket were gratuitous and difficult for me to accept. She was working us, a little bit. I do think the gist of her accusation was probably true. But in no case is my take on demeanor, or yours, the truth. Again, that's just junk analysis. We all do it, but it can't matter in a formal proceeding.
Some folks are rightfully concerned about 'losing' the American democratic system, concerned about middle class Americans being squeezed out of the electoral process by organized economic power, concerned about the avalanche of big money to our elections, & so on...
Is anyone going to lose their right to vote because of this organized economic power?
If not, how will those "folks" be squeezed out of the electoral process?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
