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.
Because Black men are no longer being physically lynched for such accusations. High tech lynchings are acceptable if you are thought to be politically incorrect.
Has nothing to do with Black men. It is men in general. And it is a conflict of views not a lynching.
I will go with a Supreme Court Justice's definition.
And a Supreme Court Justice should be close to flawless. The candidate is not. His youthful transgressions might have been forgivable. But not after he denied them.
And a Supreme Court Justice should be close to flawless. The candidate is not. His youthful transgressions might have been forgivable. But not after he denied them.
To quote a Congressman at the state of the union. Now you lie. "Flawless" sounds like a church definition for a Bishop, but then I jumped into a Church of Politics discussion page so I should expect secular religion arguments.
Why do they want allegations alone to bring someone down? Is that really the world you want to live in?
It's not so much the allegations, it's about him possibly lying. He had 3 maybe 4 talking points today and he didn't deviate from them. And he didn't answer many of the questions. He was belligerent and obviously not bipartisan. He showed his true colors when he attacked democrats for conspiring against him along with the Clintons. I wonder who schooled him on this narrative I don't want someone like this to be on our highest court because he will bring a black cloud to it. And honestly, I didn't believe him
I think liberals just want a way to easily dispatch those they disagree with or don't like. A sexual assault claim is very easy to make, and considered to be very serious and defamatory, but hard to prove. So naturally they want to take away the requirement of proof.
Why do they want allegations alone to bring someone down? Is that really the world you want to live in?
I would rather live in a world where the right questions are asked of both people involved without the accuser being called a liar before that hearing.
It's not so much the allegations, it's about him possibly lying. He had 3 maybe 4 talking points today and he didn't deviate from them. And he didn't answer many of the questions. He was belligerent and obviously not bipartisan. He showed his true colors when he attacked democrats for conspiring against him along with the Clintons. I wonder who schooled him on this narrative I don't want someone like this to be on our highest court because he will bring a black cloud to it. And honestly, I didn't believe him
So you want all court nominees to testi-lie and pretend that the party not in power will vote in mass to stop him while the party in power will vote in mass to confirm him. Telling the truth is thus a disqualifying act.
To be fair, nearly all liberals wants the FBI to do an investigation. That doesn't sound like like they want to just rely on an allegation.
No they just want to see if they can hold out until after the election and then become the party in power able to enforce their will. Just like the Republicans did to President Obama when they held power. That is why they held on to their hold card until it was too late for a back up nominee before the congressional elections in November
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.