Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

He effectively was lying. He posted unrelated links in an effort to debunk the truth.







The man handing out the cash is named Vinay Krishnan and he works for a Soros funded group called Center for Popular Democracy

 

Hahahaha! Okay, sure. Hey, just stop by the park nearby and I'll hand you, in public, a wad of cash on the same day you go act like a loon for my evil liberal boss.

Here's an "educational post": there are a BUNCH of people in America who need ZERO money to loudly protest something.

 

So these guys are like the fake eagles fans at the white house?

 

That's literally what happened though.....You'd be much better off suggesting that they would do so anyway, they were just getting people to pay for their fines because they planned on breaking the law as part of their "protest". You can say a lot of things, but you can't say it didn't happen when it obviously did.

 

I wonder how @Bobbythegreat feels about money in politics.

Consider that it is true, that Soros pays off protestors, I don't think those pictures are all that damning, sounds like another crazy conspiracy, but lets consider it is true... is it any worse than how our system works now? That big corporations and organizations can funnel money behind a candidate that then goes to bat for them...but I suppose that's another topic for another thread.

 

Well, it is true, and it's obviously true. So let's start there. Do I really have a problem with it? No, what I have a problem with are people who pretend that it's not going on.

 

No cos you havent provided any proof that it did.

 

Cory Booker is such an idiot

 

I showed you the photos of the man who works for a Soros funded organization giving money to people right before the went to "protest" and get thrown out of the hearings.....How is that not proof that it happened? It clearly did. Feel free to suggest that it's okay for groups to pay people to break the law in order to protest things, but don't deny that obvious fact that it happened.

 

You are one of the most honest poster on here. I have no interest engaging with someone that is too often dishonest. You might want to try for a period of time. It has been great for me.

 

If you say so, I know it's pointless arguing, you're going to believe what you want to believe in the end.

I couldn't find any connections with Soros and this Center for Popular Democracy.

I mean, Washignton Free Beacon isn't exactly reputable and the 'evidence' is coming from there. Their story on this mentions an 80 million dollar effort on fighting trump. Again, what is wrong with that? This is basic putting money behind candidates they want to see win, okay, so this isn't anything alarming and nor is the group even trying to hide it. You're Bookering right now.

This organization does take donations though, so it's very possible that this group gets money from big donors on the left (Like Soros) and that they use this money to organize protests. I'm not sure why that would be relevant or why anyone would care. It really changes nothing in the scheme of things. I don't think these protestors will have any real effect on public opinion on Kavanaugh.

 

What you presented is simply circumstantial evidence that raises suspicion.

There is no evidence that
1. the man is who you claim he is
2. he is there in the capacity of a staff of a Soros funded organization
3. money truly changed hand (all you have is a pic of money in two people's hand)
4. a payment was made in exchange for a protest
5. the woman would not have protested if not paid

You also have no confessions or admissions of guilt by any of the parties involved

You simply have no proof

 

It's pointless for you to argue when you know you are wrong and are just arguing due to some weird tribal defense mechanism.

Well then you didn't do a very good job of looking, for more than 5 years now one of their top donors has been Open Society Foundations. Either way though, the fact that the group is funded by Soros doesn't really matter, the point is that it is astroturf pretending to be grass roots.

Again, the argument you should be making is that it doesn't matter that the protests are corporate funded, not trying to change reality and pretend it's not the case.

 

I am wrong on what? I said it's possible that Soros funded the protests, directly or indirectly. Just that it is completely irrelevant either way and you haven't shown enough proof for it to be true.

If it turns out to be true, ah well, it really doesn't matter. Seems the only people that care about these are barely reputable sites and random twitter users. I'd think Fox News and Breitbart would be all over this one considering how much they despise Soros but not even they are biting on this yet.

 

Why do the folks with the D beside their name speak with such disrespect to Kavanaugh? He seems to be a congenial person granted I have only had a chance to watch a few hours. I feel like they hate this dude.

 

He represents the end of their dream of stripping civil rights from people and they hate that.

 

If there will be any stripping of rights, it is more likely going to be attempted by the right and 'conservatives'

 

At the moment, the anti-civil liberties crowd is the left, they've been attacking the first and second amendment pretty regularly. I won't deny that some who call themselves conservatives have their anti-civil liberties tendencies as well, but the major threat at the moment is from the left. A good deal of them would outright chuck the 2nd amendment in the bin, I'm not sure there's a comparable issue when it comes to those on the right....at least not when it comes to actual civil rights.

 

1. It is the right that seems to have problems with people of certain ancestry or religion. They are the ones that seem to have a problem with free press.
2. They are the ones that want to take away a woman's right to choose what happens with her own body
3. It is the right that never wanted LGBT to have equal rights.

Worse still is that they usually try to do it under the guise of religious beliefs and in the name of God

But when anyone wants responsible gun ownership, it is quickly misrepresented as taking away the second amendment. and the ignorant swallow it whole, like a cheap hooker giving head.

 

Doug Mataconis's summary of the hearings so far and the presidential prospects of Booker, Harris, and Klobuchar:

"To a large degree, it seemed apparent that much of what was going on over on the Democratic side of the committee was about electoral concerns more than it was about Kavanaugh himself or any organized effort to keep him off the Court that has even the slightest chance of succeeding. The Democratic base has made it clear to Senate leadership that opposition to Kavanaugh is an important issue to them and any failure to live up to the expectations of this wing of the party could have a serious impact on voter turnout in November, which obviously would impact the party’s chances at taking control of the House and Senate. Additionally, as both The New York Times and The Washington Post point out, many of the members of the Judiciary Committee who have been the most aggressive in their questioning of the Judge have been people who are considered potential candidates for President in 2020. The most obvious examples here, of course, are Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, both of whom have been particularly aggressive in their questioning, but it also applies to other Senators such as Amy Klobuchar who has also been mentioned as a potential 2020 candidate. For these potential candidates, being seen as having been aggressively opposed to Kavanaugh’s nomination is a way to prove their bona fides to the Democratic base. The only problem is that their job on the Senate Judiciary Committee isn’t to score political points, and it’s not at all clear that the sometimes tangential lines of questioning these Senators have chosen are accomplishing anything with respect to an average voter that might be watching the hearings at a given time.

"In any case, after two days of questioning it seems clear that Senate Democrats were unable to really lay a glove on Kavanaugh, or to bring to light anything that has a reasonable chance of derailing his confirmation. The fact that he declined to answer question after question regarding how he might rule with regard to a specific precedent might be frustrating, but as I stated yesterday it follows in the custom of every Supreme Court nominee dating back to Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 and is also the only proper response that a sitting Judge and prospective Associate Justice can give to such questions. To make any promises regarding how they might rule in the future would be a tremendous breach of judicial ethics, would set a precedent for future nominees that would only guarantee that these hearings will become even more political, and would cast doubt on the legitimacy of future decisions. The Senators know this, of course, and they mainly ask questions like this for the consumption of the television audience."​

https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/k...ning-was-bumpy-but-wont-derail-his-nomination

more at the link