I doubt it. Murkowski and Collins won't get reelected if they put in a judge that ultimately overturns Roe v Wade, in fact, most of the GOP won't get reelected if they do that. Well, I just don't care to give you serious responses when you make up my position and attack it. If you want to argue with your strawman I'll happily help you do that though.
They wouldn't get reelected if they voted against Barrett, what she would do down the line wouldn't matter, they'd already be out of a job. She really was the safe choice, you can't attack her without it being spun as an attack on all wahmans but she's ideologically radical so they went for a more moderate choice, but unfortunately they picked a man so the false allegations started. Don't be upset when you lose, you should be used to it by now.
This makes no sense, if you think people care that much about the gender of a candidate then Clinton would have won. At the end of the day, nearly EVERY poll shows that women care about this ruling and it standing, nearly every poll shows that if you take this away you are going to lose support from most women in the country. If you really think Barrett would get support from the country as she strips away rights from women just because she herself is a woman than you are just, to put it kindly, naive. I find it hilarious that you think anyone wins or loses on this forum, says all I need to know about your posting history here.
Democrats weren't able to defeat Kavanaugh on the issues, that's why they went the route of the false allegations, they wouldn't have done any better against Barrett and no one believes sexual assault claims against women. As to Clinton, she had all the advantages in the world, she was just far too much of a piece of ****. Now I'm not saying that Democrats wouldn't have pulled out as many dirty tricks as possible no matter who the candidate was, I'm just saying that those attacks can be easily morphed into an attack on all wahmans everywhere....and that hurt the Democrats a LOT more than they can afford.
Sexual misconduct allegations notwithstanding, what I witnessed in those hearings was a man temperamentally unfit to serve ice cream at Baskin-Robbins much less sit on the Supreme Court. Crying jags and fits of anger?
I've seen no proof to the allegations being false. I know that you think just because you typed it, that makes it now true, but there is currently an FBI Investigation surrounding Kavanaugh, and my guess is this probably won't be the last time he has an investigation cloud over his head. Well, with Barrett the attack is simple. "She's going to rule against Roe V Wade." There. Not sure how that is an attack against "Women".
Yeah no proof that the allegations are false other than the fact that everyone who was allegedly present says that it didn't happen including close personal friends of the accuser....I mean other than the complete and total lack of evidence or corroboration the allegations are credible LOL [QUOTE="JayGoogle, post: 11985799, member: 26991"Well, with Barrett the attack is simple. "She's going to rule against Roe V Wade." There. Not sure how that is an attack against "Women".[/QUOTE] That was the same attack tried against Kavanaugh that failed and led to the false allegations as a backup. Also, literally any disagreement with a wahmans can be viewed as an attack against all wahmans.
Yeah, not true. Please go on. Right, because Kavanaugh's opinion on Roe V Wade isn't concrete, Barrett's is. Therefore, it will be a lot harder for Murkowski and Collins to accept a judge like that and to ignore her history on the issue. Kavanaugh doesn't have a real history on the issue. Why are you misspelling women like that? Seems mocking. It seems you hold the opinion that women are so stupid that they don't believe that there are other women who will gladly take away their rights to try and force them to live in their lame trad world.
Professional writers offering biased personal opinion does not prove Kavanaugh was telling lies. I'd rather you have an objective debate with their opinions rather than buying in totality. Think for yourself.
LOL, oh yeah? Is this some of your "alternative facts"? Point to even one person who was allegedly there that says that party happened and we'll continue, if not, then let's just agree that you should stop embarrassing yourself.
That wasn't an opinion. It was examples of Kavanaugh lying. 1. He lied when said that all of Ford's allegations were refuted by all of the witnesses. That is a lie. While they may not have corroborated the events saying they don't remember or recall is different than saying they didn't happen. 2. He said that he never attended an event like the one described by Ford. His calendar is full of them and he has marked that he was hanging out with friends drinking beer exactly as Ford described. 3. Kavanaugh said they didn't run in the same circles. Yet in other interviews he admitted that he was friends with Holten-Arms girls. 4. Boof doesn't refer to flatulence. 5. Devil's Triangle isn't a drinking game similar to quarters. 6. Beach Week Ralph club wasn't about getting ill from spicy food. 7. He claimed to have no connections to Yale. His grandfather went to Yale. 8. Kavanaugh says he wasn't involved with Pryor's nomination. Emails show that he was indeed consulted about the nomination. 9. When asked about his knowledge of Bush's warrantless wiretapping program and asked if he had seen documents relating to it. Kavanaugh said he learned of it from an article in the NY Times. Yet emails came about that showed Kavanaugh emailing John Yoo about the program prior to that article. 10. Leahy had some emails stolen. They ended up in the hands of Kavanaugh and some other Republicans. Kavanaugh said he didn't know about the source of the information. Yet it turns out that one of his emails included a first draft of the memos stolen from Leahy. I think you get the idea. The guy is a liar and dishonest. It has been exposed. You can make excuses if yo uwish.
LOL, oh yeah? Is this some of your "alternative facts"? Point to even one person who was allegedly there that says that party didn't happen and we'll continue, if not, then let's just agree that you should stop embarrassing yourself.
Wow, this is an incredibly naive post. Everyone who Dr Ford claims was there says they were never at such a gathering and her friend Leland says she never met Kavanaugh.
I will respond to those that were part of the testimony I watched. 1. That's not a lie. It's called an opinion. In his opinion, all of them saying that party never happened refutes her saying it did happen. 2. Without a follow-up question to determine what he meant like the one described. It could mean the exact guest list which Ms Gyser confirmed she has never met him. 3. Did you hang in the same circle with everyone at your own school, at work, etc? Come on man. 4. I have no idea what Boof means. If you think those guys were getting teenage girls give them a ride to Brownsville, that's far fetched. It's not uncommon for groups of friends to have phrases based on inside jokes. 5. I grew up back them and I heard of variations of quarters called this or that triangles That's a reach to call what he and his friends called a game a lie. 6. Here's the part of his answer that renders this point moot. WHITEHOUSE: Did it relate to alcohol? You haven’t answered that. KAVANAUGH: I like beer. I like beer. I don’t know if you do… 7. The closest that you come to a statement that is technically untrue. He did have a connection there that he may or may not have used. I hardly see any bearing on what he's accused of that applies with him basically trying to say he busted his ass to get where he is. You don't get where he got without hard work.
Sorry, I'm on the side that thinks it probably didn't happen when 4 people don't remember it happening...not the side that thinks it absolutely happened but they simply couldn't remember it. That's just me.
