morekaos said:Mark my words, even if they get all of this new testimony they will get nothing new to add. All the votes will remain exactly the same. This is a colossal stall tactic, all ?witnesses ? will simply re read their current sworn affidavits and nothing new. He will be seated for the next session
morekaos said:Because the stall will never end. You watch, more allegations will come out and more calls for longer investigation no matter how outrageous the claim. Stall, stall, stall. Now they are crying foul that an "artificial" time frame of a week is biased and just plain mean. This will never end unless the Repubs have the nuts to put an end to it and just have the vote.
morekaos said:Because the stall will never end. You watch, more allegations will come out and more calls for longer investigation no matter how outrageous the claim. Stall, stall, stall. Now they are crying foul that an "artificial" time frame of a week is biased and just plain mean. This will never end unless the Repubs have the nuts to put an end to it and just have the vote.
nosuchreality said:morekaos said:Because the stall will never end. You watch, more allegations will come out and more calls for longer investigation no matter how outrageous the claim. Stall, stall, stall. Now they are crying foul that an "artificial" time frame of a week is biased and just plain mean. This will never end unless the Repubs have the nuts to put an end to it and just have the vote.
ROFLMAO, stall.
Go on, ram it through, make the tsunami.
The Repubs need this, need this bad to come off as a thorough but quick background check to vet the potential of the claims.
The riled base can't save you when you alienate the middle third.
I guess I'm just a RINO.
morekaos said:Who cares? He will be seated by 48:52 margin. End of circus
Perspective said:Sorry, I was neither trying to win that election, nor was Garland my boy. I voted for the least worst candidate, as I do in every election. For the first time in my adult life, the least worst presidential candidate was Clinton in 2016.
Here?s what the FBI should ask Kavanaugh, that the Dems were too respectful (scared?) to ask:
If we interview a dozen of your friends and associates from high school, college, and law school, will they support your statement that you never blacked-out? Never drank so much that you became drunk? Stuck only to beer? Always behaved respectfully while drinking?
If these people disagree with your characterizations of your drinking habits, would they be lying? All of them? Every single one is lying, and you?re the sole truth teller?
If we interview a dozen of your friends and associates from high school, college, and law school, will they support your definitions of:
FFFFFourth of July
Devil?s Triangle
Boof
Renate Alum
If they disagree with your definitions, and universally agree these are all sexual terms, would they all be lying?
If we interview a dozen of your friends and associates from high school, college, and law school, will they support your characterization of yourself as a virgin well beyond high school?
Happiness said:People can be very sincere in their belief about something that is completely untrue. I believe the Dems found such a person in Dr. Ford. If your job involves reviewing surveliance camera footage, for example if you are in the insurance or legal industry, you know about this common phenomen.
I have seen dozens of cases where people will claim with 100% certainty (hours after the incident, not 36 years later) that the other car backed into them. But the surveliance camera footage shows they actually accellerated into the other car. The person making the claim is not a liar or uncredibe, on the contrary, they are very credible and sincere. However, they just believe something happened that didn't actually happen. Memory and pereception are not reliable so credibility is not evidence of anything.
morekaos said:If you think I am callous wait until this guy is seated next week and watch all the caring dems discard this women like yesterday?s newspaper because she will have lost her usefulness. Ask in a week who cares and then the answer will be...no one
fortune11 said:morekaos said:If you think I am callous wait until this guy is seated next week and watch all the caring dems discard this women like yesterday?s newspaper because she will have lost her usefulness. Ask in a week who cares and then the answer will be...no one
She has a masters from Stanford and a PhD from USC, my purple genius . She lives in Palo Alto, a wealthy suburb. She didn?t need to come forward for her 2 minutes of fame like the real housewives of Orange County .
She does not need to be ?used? and ?discarded? . This is the problem w macho misogynists in the GOP . Do you even believe educated women have any free agency ?
Happiness said:fortune11 said:She has a masters from Stanford and a PhD from USC, my purple genius . She lives in Palo Alto, a wealthy suburb. She didn?t need to come forward for her 2 minutes of fame like the real housewives of Orange County .
She does not need to be ?used? and ?discarded? . This is the problem w macho misogynists in the GOP . Do you even believe educated women have any free agency ?
You're right, she didn't have to do this. So why did she? Who put her up to it? I'll wait for Julian Assange to provide the real answer (unless the Dems have switched to burner phones and disappearing ink to make themselves Wikileak proof).