J-Rod10 said:What does she have to gain from it?
Round about $600K as of the other day, and more than likely a book deal whether he gets in or not.
Absolutely.Sav0r said:Can we all agree that term limits for Judges should be a thing?
This politicized bullshit is out of control.
J-Rod10 said:Absolutely.
J-Rod10 said:No, I don't think she did it for the money. But to say there is nothing to gain, at this point, isn't true.
I think she came forward with the understanding that she would remain anonymous, with a claim that can't be corroborated, and the Dems played her like a fiddle.
I think it sets a dangerous precedent when someone making a claim disqualifies you from doing whatever, with no proof that it's true.
This will be a tool used by both sides from this point forward.
Which, I think, is mostly my problem with it. It's he said she said. There's no way around that. The problem, is the left sitting on it for months. As soon as the claim was made, the decision to investigate it could have been made, and he either cleared, or not. Instead, the decision was made to sit on it until the last minute, and use it as a partisan tool to try to stall the confirmation until after mid-terms.
Sav0r said:Let's bring back democracy. Fuck this shit.
Fuck cable TV, fuck advertisement based news media, fuck news media, and fuck the dumbasses who pay for all that shit.
/rant
J-Rod10 said:The Dems holding on to it until the last minute simply isn't true?
Feinstein and one other were given the info in July (after the nomination). It was only made mention of publicly a couple weeks ago after one of the two leaked it to the press.
Have a link to that?carnivorous chicken said:The Washington Post was sent the allegations in early July and passed the info on to people in the admininstration, prior to the announcement of his nomination, prior to Feinstein receiving it, but after he was shortlisted. They ignored it.
J-Rod10 said:Have a link to that?
The WaPo article says she anonymously made a tip to them in early July, same time as she went to her Senator. Says nothing about the WaPo taking it to the White House.
carnivorous chicken said:I should add -- refuting your arguments J-Rod probably won't change your mind about Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence, but I'm hoping you can at least see that his temperament, his stated partisan bias, and his proven lying on the stand should disqualify him for the Supreme Court. Right? Right??
J-Rod10 said:..... I think she came forward with the understanding that she would remain anonymous, with a claim that can't be corroborated, and the Dems played her like a fiddle.....
I think it sets a dangerous precedent when someone making a claim disqualifies you from doing whatever, with no proof that it's true...
J-Rod10 said:Barber was fun, stupid hot, but fun. The week before getting ready, and the few days after getting unpacked sucks.
Kav got in, even managed to pull a Dem vote.
Time to ramp up for the Mid-Terms now.
Clinton quote today.
"You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about," Clinton told CNN's Christiane Amanpour. "That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again."
Only be civil when you're in charge, apparently. And folks wonder why things are so divided.