the problem with you right wingers is the limitations brought on by emotionalism and rigid thinking - just imagine if it turns out she was wrong wouldn't this strengthen the position you people have been taking all along? imagine how embarrassing that would be for her There is nothing to be afraid of. That is, if your hero Kavanaugh is speaking the truth. Because if he is, then he will be fully vindicated and his record clear for the rest of his life. This is something you should want. The only reason why you are in such fear of these hearings is because you fear that maybe, just maybe, these charges are true. This will embarrass Kavanaugh and your hero Trump. As anybody can see from your posts, and those of the far right in this thread, is that you people are motivated by FEAR. Obviously you do not want the full truth to be disclosed. By contrast, we the more patriotic sort just want the FACTS. Just the truth. And that can only be determined conclusively be a fair hearing in which everyone is allowed to disclose all testimony under oath. And this is what we are going to get whether you want it or not.
Oh by the way, did you notice the survey's answers? I don't know. The vote should be delayed and Christine Blasey Ford should testify. 20 vote(s) 54.1% That's right, the MAJORITY of the respondents on this thread called for those hearings. This in a forum that is 90% right wing. While you and Pollycy are hell bent on voiding the hearings while claiming your views are the better way, the majority here want those hearings to proceed. And that, again, is what we are going to get.
Nah, I just remember the Duke Lacrosse debacle. Folks like you lined up hoping the drunk frat boy meme was real.... This isn't a case of us being fearful. This is a case of us having seen the script before. The only fear here is the motivation that produced ms Ford in the first place. Liberals recognizing that their decades long reign of terror on the SCOTUS is coming to an end. So, spare us the "we more patriotic" bs. Clearly, that isn't the case. Nice try at deflection though. You don't want facts, you demand that you get a voice, even though the reason you don't have a voice is your own party's fault. But you supported Harry then, huh?
Says the one who earlier complained about deflection and going off topic. True. As in the Cosby case or in any number of church abuse cases. The majority who responded to the poll made a similar demand. Unlike you they are not afraid of the truth.
Pointing out that we've seen liberals and their lawyers waste our time is deflection? Good one. I laughed. Cosby was a threat. He was an unapologetic realist and regularly attacked liberal dependency. Shocker, he get's attacked. Did he do bad things? Likely, he was part of Hollywood for a pretty long time. Let the truth come out. That's why there's a hearing tomorrow, and why you're so actively trying to deflect from it. It's you who are fearful here. We can all see it.
Excuse me, but that wmd myth was started during the Clinton administration. Personally, I dont think neither Clinton or Bush personally started the myth, but they both did promote the idea.
We have discussed on this forum the fact that the WMD were decommissioned thanks to Clinton's efforts and that Hans Blix determined there were no active outlawed weaponry at the time of traitor Bush's actions. See also the Downing Street Memo previously discussed here.
Laughable. Let's the hearings begin is PRECISELY what the majority have been saying all along unlike those of you who a have been hellbent on defending Kavanaugh.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/082c88a2-fe85-36e3-a7a9-b7cfd2c9ef24/kavanaugh’s-high-school.html Kavanaugh’s High School Calendar Lists Movies, Camp and Grounding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh submitted a 36-year-old calendar listing his daily activities as part of his defense against allegations of sexual misconduct at a high school party. Four months worth of pages from the green and white 1982 calendar were released by the Senate Judiciary Committee. There are also references to the start and end of basketball camp, prom, a party and times and plans to see movies, such as Grease II. It also has notes such as "Interview Yale” and “Go to Connecticut for weekend” and includes individuals’ names. ... Hopefully the MeToo witnesses will face both criminal and civil charges for their libel and slander. If you can't prove it don't say it, imply it, infer it or in any manner communicate it. Isn't that the law? Moi Y Chromosome Power! No one ever accused Mexico of being pussified!
I now understand what your real issue is here. You simply want to spread misinformation, right? Who is "hellbent on defending Kavanaugh" here? Me? Do you not, as a lawyer, believe in innocent until proven guilty? So, when folks question the veracity of the woman reporting the incident, (36 years late) and has no specific detail about the incident, can't remember basic facts about when, where, or with whom, that's "hellbent on defending Kavanaugh"? Laughable. Truly. I understand that you want to oppose the nominee, and failing this gross tactic, you have nothing else. We get it. Clearly. Go stand in line with Avanetti. He thinks he has a 20 yo (in 1981-2) who was attending high school parties where she witnessed "gang rapes" who insists that she was also "gang raped" but continued going to those parties, and was drugged using qualudes...or something. Go stand with him. Show your indignance. This is classic character assassination. She "told people" about these acts. And yet, she never went to the police, and she kept going to the parties. Wow....
Well you as a doctor do not typically make a diagnosis based on a hunch. Being the doctor you are, you make a full examination of all evidence and then make a determination so as to correct the problem faced by your patients. As such, the proper thing to do is to hold those hearings objectively. Then upon hearing all testimony, examining every bit of evidence, then we reach an informed conclusion. Same as with a medical diagnosis. Ain't that right, Doc?
Terrible poll. How about the option: 'confirm him, then investigate the claims thoroughly'? Seriously, its not like he becomes immune to the law once on the SC. Confirm, investigate, and remove him from the court if/when investigations pan out.
I'm finding on these boards that most of the polls don't have an option for me. Poll creators need to account for people who don't need the talking points memo to decide how they feel about something. My poll answer is, I don't know, I don't care, it was 30 years ago, they were kids. Trump won the election so he gets to choose. Approve and move on. That said, he's an absolutely horrible pick that only increases the number of swamp creatures in our federal government. The timing on this is bullshit. Partisans suck. It's all about tricks these days. We need leadership & governance. We have 3rd graders running this country. So sad.
Interesting deflection. How about this. If a doctor examines a patient (as I would assume ms Katz was supposed to do with ms Ford) I would find it difficult to prescribe say, antibiotics if all the patient was able to say was, "I think I have an STD". For example. If there wasn't actual evidence of sexual relations, ie, can't remember if there was sex, when it happened, or where, I would have a difficult time expecting any doctor to prescribe drugs. And yet, ms Katz took this case. I suppose her close personal relationship with ms Clinton doesn't have anything to do with it, or the fact that her organization has received funding from mr Soros.. Oh no.... So, I'll tell you this. The "proper thing to do here" since you brought it up, is the question why ms Katz, absent any credible evidence of actual wrong doing, took on representation of someone like ms Ford. I think that's an excellent question. Equating that back to the diagnosis. Medical diagnosis is entirely different than legal certainty. You're a lawyer, right? Don't you understand the difference? Apparently not. And I'll put a finer point on it. I wouldn't accept "testimony", I would create my own examination, order appropriate tests to confirm or not my suspicious based on the examination. And because we can actually test these things, the results of the presence of say STD bacteria would then also support the prescription of antibiotics, a silver bullet, etc. Where in ms Ford's public comments do you find sufficient evidence to support that the examination should occur in the first place? But, it will. Tomorrow, under oath. Can't wait. Popcorn popping, And we'll watch the story evaporate faster than Joe Biden's Google image library where he actually assaults folks in public....
agreed... the op must be biased, using leading responses... should be able to answer 'yes' or 'no' without the included trump bs... in other words, one could hate trump, yet believe that kavanaugh didn't do it or not care because of when/where/age... the entire poll is just bs & misleading...
@modernpaladin @Blaster3 Yes, Answers should not have qualifiers. Should be, Yes/No. http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/simple-poll-yes-no.541113/ http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/zefram-cochrane.541672/ http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/can-they-be-trusted.513616/ http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/carter-lawless-or-gadot.538688/ Simple questions. Simpler answers. And respondents fill in their own qualifiers Yes? No?
I was speaking about those numerous issues where the people in various states have voted for certain laws, only to have those laws thrown out or choked-off by a bunch of liberal Federal judges. But you KNEW THAT... don't be coy.... As far as this idiotic situation against Kavanaugh is concerned... well, Blasey Ford got up there and whined her little whine, looked as pathetically brow-beat as possible, and all the Democrats rallied around her and her preposterous, undocumented, unproven 'recollection' from 36 YEARS AGO... just like we knew they would. Now (NOW) -- could we please have a VOTE? Not one word has been issued against this man that would disqualify him. Everything that has been thrown at him has failed to contain even one particle of TRUTH. Enough of this bullshit! VOTE! It's all going to come down to ALL Demcorats voting against him, and all real Republicans voting for him -- because there's absolutely no reason NOT to vote for him! But, there are three RINO's in the mix, Collins, Murkowski, and Flake, and right now nobody knows what the hell they are going to do.... If we sit still for the destruction of Brett Kavanaugh over nothing more than a bunch of ancient, "he said/she said" UNPROVEN nonsense that some liberal Democrat California college teacher dredged up in 'therapy sessions' six years ago about some kind of grab-ass twaddle that supposedly happened 36 years ago -- then we Americans have disgraced ourselves by destroying a good man and his family, with no more serious consideration than that used in stepping on an INSECT.
Many others have said the same thing with far more eloquence and detail than I have. I have said what I genuinely believe, based on the FACT that there is NO evidence and NO proof of any credible kind that has credibly been brought against Brett Kavanaugh.... BTW, you are welcome to quote anything that anyone here in the Forum has posted, including me. I see that you are new to this Forum, and I welcome you aboard, whether you agree with me on things or not. I've been posting here for ten years, and it's surprising to me how much I've learned from others, both allies and opponents.... At any rate, now we've heard what Blasey Ford has to say, and, once again, it contained NO EVIDENCE, and, NO PROOF whatever. Time now to VOTE!
Couldn't vote, my option wasn't listed. "I don't know. The vote should not be delayed and Christine Blasey Ford should testify."
Because polls are biased by the author. When doing a poll, you are to remain impartial and give choices for both sides. When they don't, it highlights an agenda.
This other discussion makes it look like she is not a good witness at all! http://www.politicalforum.com/index...t-the-safeway-meeting.542711/#post-1069683225 Ford's lie about the Safeway meeting
Brett Kavanaugh (aka "Bart O'Kavanaugh") has an obvious, strong incentive to lie. Dr Ford has no such motivation.
