Kreepy Kavanaugh

[KeithD]

If I recall correctly Kavanaugh claimed abstinence from sex while in high school AND many years after. Perhaps the FBI can find someone who can contradict that.

Professor Ford does and did under oath in a congressional hearing. Maybe they'll talk to Renata Schroeder, who featured in the self-compiled senior yearbook pages of Kavanaugh and eight other prep school football team mates as "Renata Aluminus." One of the guys even included a poem about Renata of the quality you'd find on a bathroom wall. Or you could read the book by Kavanaugh's best friend, Mark Judge, about the hedonist high school years of Judge and friends, including one Bart O'Kavanaugh. The FBI could ask Kavanaugh directly about such things, but what would be another lie on top of all the ones he's demonstrated as having made in sworn testimony already.

The FBI could query Kavanaugh directly on his attempt to mislead on the legality of his drinking in high school. In slippery terms he has, more than once, testified that he drank as a senior and that the drinking age in Maryland in 1982 was 18. Well, not quite relevant, Bart. He was drinking before he was a senior. He was still 17 as a senior when the drinking age law was changed from 18 to 21 in 1982. So, the truth is that whatever beer drinking he was doing in Maryland before he was 21 was illegal drinking. The big deal here is a federal judge lying under oath.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

https://image.ibb.co/g65QUK/File_Sep_30_7_52_41_PM.png

 

[Que]

Let's talk about that "nuclear option". The Democrats talked of using it but never did. The Republicans blamed the Dems for threatening to use it so they claimed that gave them the right to use it. Since when is talking about robbing a bank and robbing the bank the same thing? That's very much like claiming that the choice of a Supreme court justice needed to wait 9 months so the people could have their say, but now it's a hurry to get Kavenaugh on the bench and to hell with the peoples voice. And no it doesn't make a difference because that was a Presidential election. This election could be as influential in the seating of a justice (because of the possible change in the Senate who are the ones who confirm the presidents choice) as the one in 2016. And if the people decide to make it so, it's voicing their preference on how our government is run.

It seems to me what's good for goose is good for the goosie. Anything else is just two faced prevarication.


Comshaw

The Dems absolutely used it for judicial appointments. The packed the courts with judges that absolutely would not have been confirmed. McConnell warned Reid 5hat if he did, the Dems would live to regret it. They did not have an 9ccaision to use it on a SCOTUS appointee as Republicans took the Senate.

The two appointees that Obama did get on the court were confirmed with bipartisan assistance from the Republicans. Not because either pick was the least bit Centris but because Republicans like idiots think that they need to play fair. Especially when you're dealing with Democrats who don't think they need to.

Democrats reaped what they showed. How do you not know this?

 

[BBX50]

Rachel Mitchell issues report

Just about calls her a LIAR

https://100percentfedup.com/just-in...estimony-sent-to-all-senate-republicans-weak/

 

[BBX50]

lets assume he drank heavily in HS

SO WHAT?

 

[BBX50]

sorta kinda cute

how OLE ALGO who links to everything

doesnt link to shit like this

AP: Even More Legal Disputes, At Least Six Involving Kavanaugh Accuser, Julie Swetnick

 

[BBX50]

WELL, SURE, HE’S A DEMOCRAT: Juanita Broaddrick: Sen. Feinstein had no interest in my rape allegation against Bill Clinton.

 

[phrodeau]

lets assume he drank heavily in HS

SO WHAT?

Maybe he didn’t break any Commandments in high school, but he sure broke two of them last week.

 

[HisArpy]

AWHUMMM......That's was the projections for the 2016 presidential elections too. Didn't happen did it? Don't bank too much on polls. They missed it then, they could miss it again. And one very, very good way to make a swing and a miss happen is over confidence in a blue wave happening. Even a dead wasp can sting.

Comshaw

The "Blue Wave" is an attempt to commercialize what history shows us is the norm rather than the exception.

Historically, the opposing party takes the House during mid-term elections. If that's the case, then the Dem's winning the House this fall wouldn't be unusual. What's damn funny is the Dem's trying to tart the norm into something with a "special meaning".

What are they going to say if it doesn't happen? Polls say it might, but most polls haven't been all that accurate for the last few cycles. And there are historical examples of the House not going to the opposing party in times that seem to mimic the current political atmosphere. Do the Dem's just pack it in and accept that their political ideaolgy isn't what American wants? Or do they double down (again) on what's costing them votes and voters?

 

[SpeareChucker]

I do not know what the future holds other than Democrats are going to continue to become more outraged, angry and in-your-face obnoxious.

 

[phrodeau]

Maybe Brett should consider another line of work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Grg5tULy0tY

 

[Luk]

I do not know what the future holds other than Democrats are going to continue to become more outraged, angry and in-your-face obnoxious.

https://socialnewsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Untitled-1-26.jpg

 

[Luk]

I do not know what the future holds other than Democrats are going to continue to become more outraged, angry and in-your-face obnoxious.

https://i.imgur.com/Zp6sPor.jpg

 

[Luk]

I do not know what the future holds other than Democrats are going to continue to become more outraged, angry and in-your-face obnoxious.

https://i.imgur.com/CvH9FK1.png

 

[Luk]

I do not know what the future holds other than Democrats are going to continue to become more outraged, angry and in-your-face obnoxious.

https://i.imgur.com/WKd2Yyg.jpg

 

[BoyNextDoor]

You're correct. I forgot about that guy. If I remember right he has a long line of correct predictions of presidential wins. As far as Trump being impeached, we must wait and see.

Still the vast majority of polls and people assumed HRC was a shoo in. It happened once, it can very well happen again.


comshaw

The "Judicial Crisis Network" that is running hundreds of millions in ads for Kavanaugh on all networks has deep ties to Clarence Thomas. Neither he nor Kavanaugh belong on the court.

Severino, who runs the thing, is a former law clerk for supreme court justice Clarence Thomas.

 

[bigsly]

Professor Ford does and did under oath in a congressional hearing.

Professor Ford testified that Kavanaugh lied about abstaining from sex in high school? I don't remember that. Are you sure about that?

 

[bigsly]

What's really interesting to me is that Kavanaugh is being raked over the coals for all this high school she said he said stuff when what supremely disqualifies him from even sitting on the bench he does now is his documented preference for federal government power over the Constitution, as many of his anti-4th and 5th Amendment opinions demonstrate.

 

[Comshaw]

The Dems absolutely used it for judicial appointments. The packed the courts with judges that absolutely would not have been confirmed. McConnell warned Reid 5hat if he did, the Dems would live to regret it. They did not have an 9ccaision to use it on a SCOTUS appointee as Republicans took the Senate.

The two appointees that Obama did get on the court were confirmed with bipartisan assistance from the Republicans. Not because either pick was the least bit Centris but because Republicans like idiots think that they need to play fair. Especially when you're dealing with Democrats who don't think they need to.

Democrats reaped what they showed. How do you not know this?

You are correct in that they did use it for judicial appointments. My bad. And why didn't I know this? Unlike some I have a life and I have things to fill my time with other than high level politics. I do not spend the majority of my time on chat boards arguing about politics or incessantly reading things on that subject that bolster a confirmation bias. And also unlike many others, when I'm wrong I say I'm wrong.

But after your correct statement you added the sentence about Republicans playing fair. Really ffs? McConnell is fair when he refused to sign a statement condemning Russian interference in the election? The Republicans are fair when they spent 8 years doing everything they could to obstruct anything the Obama administration wanted to do (and I mean EVERYTHING no matter what it was) just because "OBAMA!"?

This action by McConnell is "fair"?


https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/politics/17mcconnell.html

"Before the health care fight, before the economic stimulus package, before President Obama even took office, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, had a strategy for his party: use his extensive knowledge of Senate procedure to slow things down, take advantage of the difficulties Democrats would have in governing and deny Democrats any Republican support on big legislation."...


Yea, the Republicans really want to play fair, huh? I think you need to step back, clear your head and try to understand what words mean. While you were correct on my being wrong about the use of the nuclear option, you have also been in error most other times, but refuse to open your eyes and see it. i don't think the Democrats have been the party of fair play, but the Republicans definitely haven't been either. Trying to tell me that is much like trying to tell me Trump doesn't lie. You can say what ever you want, but when all the facts and evidence point in the other direction, i've got to go with the facts.


Comshaw

 

[RobDownSouth]

What's really interesting to me is that Kavanaugh is being raked over the coals for all this high school she said he said stuff when what supremely disqualifies him from even sitting on the bench he does now is his documented preference for federal government power over the Constitution, as many of his anti-4th and 5th Amendment opinions demonstrate.

except it's NOT "he said she said stuff". There was a witness in the room with Rapey McRaperson. His name was Mike Judge and Dr. Ford. He had such fun at these parties he wrote a book about it in 2005. He now says it never happened, but conveniently declines to do so under oath. Perjury and all that shit.

So take your fainting couch histrionic revisionist herpaderp elsewhere, chumlee.

 

[BBX50]

"The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account." See the included timeline from Rachel Mitchell's independent analysis of Dr. Ford's allegations against #Kavanaugh. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4952137/Rachel-Mitchell-s-analysis.pdf …

 

[BBX50]

in other words

the DUMZ and DUM picked lawyers anipulated a poor defenseless woman

 

[BBX50]

Listen, chickenshit, people in Trump's orbit have been indicted and convicted. Every one of them has been involved with Russia illegally. So has Trump. Just stop this stupid lying.

who was INDICTED for acting ILLEGALLY vis a vis RUSSIA?

NO ONE!

 

[BBX50]

no one was indicted for acting ILLEGALLY with Russia.....repeating your shit 50 still doesnt make it so

 

[Comshaw]

The "Blue Wave" is an attempt to commercialize what history shows us is the norm rather than the exception.

Historically, the opposing party takes the House during mid-term elections. If that's the case, then the Dem's winning the House this fall wouldn't be unusual. What's damn funny is the Dem's trying to tart the norm into something with a "special meaning".

What are they going to say if it doesn't happen? Polls say it might, but most polls haven't been all that accurate for the last few cycles. And there are historical examples of the House not going to the opposing party in times that seem to mimic the current political atmosphere. Do the Dem's just pack it in and accept that their political ideaolgy isn't what American wants? Or do they double down (again) on what's costing them votes and voters?

you're absolutely right that historically there is a political swing during the mid terms to the opposite party then is in the white house. That said, most times it's a mild to moderate swing. If it goes as the Democrats expect (and I don't have the slightest clue if it will) it will be a wide, wild swing, which isn't the norm.

What lost the Democrats votes in the last election and will cost the Republicans votes in the coming one is NOT LISTENING TO THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS! That and the fact that a whole damned bunch of the voting public haven't a fucking clue what is or isn't. A good example of that is a friend of my daughters. They were having a discussion about the presidential election and one of her friends made a disparaging remark about "Obama Care" and how it would be repealed after Trump was elected.

When my daughter asked her friend where they got their health insurance they replied "Through the ACA". My daughter then told them that the ACA was "Obama Care" which caused her friend to go volcanic with denials. Many are like that and have no fucking idea how things work and only listen to the sound bites they are fed. But once they lose what they have, things change.

One of the things the populous has to do is stop listening to the lies and bullshit coming from congress and do their own research on a subject. The advent of smart phones, instant information and the legal ruling that lying in an election is ok has caused a whole damned section of the population to stop thinking for themselves.

What needs to happen and will I believe is for some of the people in congress to get their dicks (or tits) slapped into the dirt in this coming election. And if that doesn't help to straighten things up we do it again in the next.

Many years ago we had a Representative here who thought he knew better then the voters. We passed an initiative to institute term limits here in this state for all our politicians. He thought he knew better so he filed suit against it and won. Keep in mind he had served for 30 years, was the speaker of the house, a powerful man and thought he could do what ever he wanted to.

Election time came and when it was done he had been defeated by George Nethercutt. (on an aside he wasn't much of a prize himself. He swore to only serve three terms and ended with five.)

Tom Foley got his ass handed to him because he thought we wouldn't toss him out because he was so powerful and therefore good for our state. We thought differently. That's what needs to happen. Those in power need a lesson on who the hell is really in charge. That started with the 2016 presidential election. Trumps election should have awakened many. It seems it only woke a few. Time to slap some more dicks (and tits) into the dirt.

Comshaw