There is really no depth that is too low for the likes you - smh. Ironically, those same kind of racists happily reside in the GOP.
Sounds like it hit you close to home realizing that you are effectively supporting the same kind of lynch mob mentality that in the past did some pretty horrific things in the name of "believe women" without considering evidence at all. Hopefully it'll cause you to change and become a better person in order to get on the sane side of things. Good luck to you in that endeavor.
Thank you for sharing. So then, what do you think about the offensive things Trump says and does. Many people say those who are offended are being over-sensitive. What do you think?
No it is more similar to what you are doing right now - white guys do something bad and they lie to cover it up (just like Kavanaugh was lying to cover up his past lifestyle). It is often the perpetrator that lies to cover up his acts. You are like the Mississippians that let them get away with it - you would have justified the killing of the boy, the same way you do for the death of other blacks like martin or botham.
I would say democrats have much more to lose if BK is appointed. Wouldn't you? I can't help to think how much he'll remember this whole fiasco if he's appointed. You can see how emotional he's been so far...I hope it doesn't sway his judgement on things that he would've been more level headed on simply because of all the crap he was put thru this month.
Absolutely. If he's appointed, there will be moral retribution on his future decision making. I personally find this to be the only reason he is unqualified at this point. But Feinsteins unethical behavior built this monster so I'm not going to lose sleep over it. And those who keep citing this nonsense about respecting precedent only show their hypocrisy. Given the circumstances they will happily overturn decisions they dont agree with. This is about the most ignorant statement ive heard yet. It's becoming more evident that we must revamp the SCOTUS. Term limits for starters. Secondly, we need to change how they are nominated. This partisan nonsense has to go. A simple solution is to allow any party with 10% presence in Congress vote. The catch is every party must at least confirm 40%. In other words, if a president wants his nomination selected, Republicans and Democrats each must agree a minimum 40%. And if there is a third party, they too must agree to 40% provided they have a strong enough presence. This will never happen because this takes away power from the parties.
Couldn't they both be truthful? Incident happen but he doesn't recall it because he blacked out, or even crazier, that it's such a normal typical past activity for him that he just doesn't remember who it happen to. Maybe she got the wrong person? Or, of course, one of them is out-right lying. What sway me to believe he could be lying is because he has lied in his testimony about small things such as his drinking.
Yes, as with any other Conservative judge, right? These are long term decade appointment, so I get the politics of it from both sides (and it's horrible how ugly it has gotten). But that doesn't mean Dem created a faux sexual assault story to derail given that it has not happen in the past. That would be nut if they did. Some people want to believe that - it's call conspiracy theory and I was shocked that Kav went that route (fk him for that). What more likely (and not surprising for recent politic) is Dem is taking full advantage of a real victim. If that's your or anyone beef, it's with the Dem on the committee that did this, not the victim.
Yup. This is why this was such a risky proposition for the Dems. Succeed and you possibly get a SC seat if you turn over the midterms and impeach Trump. Fail and you have a pissed off SCJ for life, could also still not have the House or Senate, and deal with 2 more years of being the doormat political party.
Sheesh, so the one 'gang raped' victim is basically a shyster , https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/3rd-kavanaugh-accuser-history-legal-disputes-100137653.html But I'm sure she's totally honest about the whole BK situation... There's other stuff in there...but clearly a lady willing to do whatever it takes to make a buck...at least that's my take away. I know this may seem petty...but she lied about having undergrad degrees from John Hopkins on job resumes...to me that's someone that doesn't GAF about any kind of integrity. If you're willing to lie about putting in that kind of effort and hard work, but not really doing it...I dunno, I wouldn't trust anything she said.
Ah, so you can convince yourself to support lynchings when it's a "white guy".....that makes it TOTALLY different. Well, I never had much hope that you'd be capable of figuring things out given your history, but hopefully you're young enough to where one of these days you'll grow up....and if you happen to be old, just keep it to yourself, that would be incredibly depressing news.
Seriously some of y'all are bringing up Emmit Til? Pardon me if I don't join in the moral outrage of those defending Kavanaugh from what you see as unfair and false accusations. I don't recall many of these people expressing the same outrage in defense of Al Franken, or Jon Conyers or the several accusations against Bill Clinton that are based only on he said she said arguments.
First, you literally admit that you don't have any problem if kavanaugh (someone you acknowledge is unqualified at this point) should act in retribution on the supreme court. Again, this is a supreme court justice, whose rulings effect EVERY American for many years. Second, republicans/conservatives/so-called "originalists/constitutionalists" have cried about liberal justices being activists and not following the constitution. And here y'all nominating justices who plainly admit they will be activists and overturn precedence that they personally disagree with. Now who is really being hypocritical? Last... forcing agreement... gee, that sure sounds like requiring a super-majority for the supreme court. Perhaps raising that idea with mcconnell might make sense?
You bring up a "Believe women" situation from the past where blindly believing women led to injustice and compare it to a "Believe women" situation now where you might also get injustice by blindly believing women. When it came to Al Franken and many other incidents, there was evidence supporting the claims, so it's not a similar situation that requires blindly "believing women".
Democrats did this to themselves by being absolute scumbags. You sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind. Perhaps in the future they'll be able to pretend that they are better people....but I doubt it. The Republicans certainly were able to pretend that they were better people when it came to treating Dr. Ford well. Perhaps a lesson could be learned.
This will not happen anytime soon. The current mindset is win at all costs, destroy anyone/anything in your way, no matter the cost. 2016 sticks in their craw so badly, they just cannot stand the results.
Kavanaugh not getting the job of Supreme Court Justice isn't a punishment. It isn't his right to be the Supreme Court Justice. It is a responsibility and opportunity. He isn't owed the job. He needs to show that he is qualified for the lifetime appointment. The Senate gets to do their job and confirm it or not. Him lying and be dishonest under oath left and right should disqualify him. That is something should eliminate him from the position whether or not he sexually assaulted one or more women.
And it won't be a punishment when Kavanaugh is on the SCOTUS bench striking down unconstitutional measures by Democrats over the next 30 years.....but that doesn't mean that it won't bring a smile to his face every time.
I didn't until he broke down crying and pouting. . . . . under the influence of alcohol . . that dude is capable of anything Rocket River
Ford came forth after 36 years with a still to this day uncorroborated "story" to solely negatively influence the decision of whether or not Kavanaugh became a Supreme Court Justice. She knew her flimsy story would only hold water with biased individuals with an axe to grind. Had she chosen to go to authorities, no charges would have been filed without evidence. Kavanaugh was far more believable than the factless woman who was talking in a 10 year old voice.
