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.
I am asking you to explain why you believe that although nobody will lose his/her right and ability to vote due to organized economic power, there is nonetheless a rational fear that some people will be squeezed out of the electoral process.
How is that fear rational?
Don't tell me to do the work or to think for myself. If you have no intelligent reply, just say so.
Or, back up your assertion with some explanation.
You said you have no interest in reading.
Don't tell me what to tell you sheesh. Authoritarian & nonsensical is not a good combination nor does it demonstrate a rationale.
Boy, wish it was a full moon tonight so the crazy's can howl at it after Kavanaugh's gets confirmed.
Congrats SCJ Kavanaugh.
Not a done deal yet. The senator who is attending their daughters wedding should be there for the vote no matter what. I don't trust the Dems or deep state.
No, because Ford did not call anyone and ask them to change their statement. "A person close to the former classmates told the Journal she believed mutual friends of both Ford and Keyser – including McLean – simply reached out to Keyser to warn her that her statement was being used by Republicans as vindication for Kavanagh and if she felt she needed to clarify what she meant, she should. The person said the mutual friends did not “pressure” Keyser."https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fri...on-allegations
Witness tampering is a serious crime, and even if Kavanaugh's actions don't meet the criteria for a charge of witness tampering they certainly appear to be inappropriate. NBC News's Heidi Przbyla and Leigh Ann Caldwell write that Kavanaugh and his team were trying to refute Ramirez’s allegations BEFORE they became public. “The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story. In a series of texts before the publication of the New Yorker story, Yarasavage wrote that she had been in contact with ‘Brett's guy,’ and also with ‘Brett,’ who wanted her to go on the record to refute Ramirez. According to Berchem, Yarasavage also told her friend that she turned over a copy of the wedding party photo to Kavanaugh, writing in a text: ‘I had to send it to Brett’s team too.’”https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/fir...ematic-n915771
In this particular incident Kavanaugh also lied to Congress, claiming that he first heard about the Ramirez claims on Sept. 23 when he read about it in the New Yorker but there are texts from July in which he discusses the Ramirez allegations.
Per NBC: "Further, the texts show Kavanaugh may need to be questioned about how far back he anticipated that Ramirez would air allegations against him. Berchem says in her memo that Kavanaugh “and/or” his friends “may have initiated an anticipatory narrative” as early as July to “conceal or discredit” Ramirez."https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...idence-n915566
If that were the definition of witness tampering Ms. Rameriez also needs to be charged. She was literally begging people to back her up. However, notice how this has gotten no traction? Not even from the Hawaiian woman, the New York woman, or the Connecticut guy, who all seem more than willing to throw anything at a wall to see what sticks? Yeah, not hearing it. That's because this whole load of crap is just wishful thinking.
He’ll be confirmed in a couple of hours and hopefully we can all put this behind us.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
If that were the definition of witness tampering Ms. Rameriez also needs to be charged. She was literally begging people to back her up. However, notice how this has gotten no traction? Not even from the Hawaiian woman, the New York woman, or the Connecticut guy, who all seem more than willing to throw anything at a wall to see what sticks? Yeah, not hearing it. That's because this whole load of crap is just wishful thinking.
He’ll be confirmed in a couple of hours and hopefully we can all put this behind us.
It’s not going anywhere because Kavanaugh testified that he heard that Ramirez was calling people. So he didn’t lie.
The four lefties on the SC vote as a bloc........always the leftist position, ideologically. Yet not ONE PEEP about that from people like you (or the lamestream media..)
lol
That would be true, if it was just the President making the appointment and done.
But here, he had 100 jurors, prosecutors, and judges, called Senators. He was on trial in the court of public opinion.
This was no job interview. It was a baseless lynching.
Not baseless--
Kavanaugh has lied to Congress before--at least twice on separate occasions...
He DID lie to Congress in both of the testimonies he gave for this nomination...
The FBI circumvented ANY possibility of finding the evidence to support he was lying because Don McGahn and apparently Chris Wray were comfortable putting such a narrow scope on whom they interviewed that Kavanaugh was never in any danger...
Of course the very fact that they DID engineer this to exclude rational evidence that would cast doubt on Kavanaugh's truthfulness means he will always be a stained Justice on the Supreme Court
But they don't care abou that
The GOP has proven over and over there is no moral center even as they try to claim the moral high ground.
Susan Collings 40min whitewashing of Brett Kavanaugh mentioned how destructive the Democrats' actions were in protesting Kavanaugh's appointment and pointed out that Garland and Kavanaugh have like a 90+ % overlap on their judicial decisions---but she never once objected to Mitch McConnell's refusal of processing Garland's nomination by Obama...
And Collins was vehement about pushing Al Franken out of the Senate w/o any kind of Senatorial hearing when his accusers came forward ---so one rule of "law" for Franken, a Democrate, and a totally different examination of character for Kavanaugh... That seems par for the course...
Her hypocrisy is going to cost her the Senate because she won't run again...3 millions reasons and growing...
Maybe she feels she wouldn't have anyway because of her age or other factors--she can lie to herself all she wants---but lying to the people of America just won't fly this time...
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.
sheesh. Authoritarian & nonsensical is not a good combination nor does it demonstrate a rationale.
