In this case it seems the burden of proving it didn’t happen is on Kavanaugh. It’s a case of he said, she said. This type of politics is becoming the new norm. Soon no one will want to be nominated or run.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
What do you think of the SCOTUS mess?
- Thread starter tecoyah
- Start date
In this case it seems the burden of proving it didn’t happen is on Kavanaugh. It’s a case of he said, she said. This type of politics is becoming the new norm. Soon no one will want to be nominated or run.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Unless of course, they are good people with nothing to hide. I for instance would not have any big skeletons that I needed to worry about.
what if one of those groupies decided 40 years later that it actually wasn't consensual?
Then I would say....yup, I was in a metal band and had los of sex with lots of women. I even smoked pot and drank...as well as a few other illegal drugs. I certainly would not say I was a virgin through high school and college. Seriously than would mean I am a liar or a freak.
Wrong. I say that you beat your dog in ‘72. Prove that you didn’t. Of course, there are no witnesses to back up my account of you beating your dog. Sixty people come forward saying you are nice to animals but you have to prove you didn’t beat your dog that one day in ‘72.
It doesn’t have to be true. It just has to put you on the defensive.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
That’s great. And our side would welcome that delay in hope we gained the seats to block your nomination. Of course, the FBI investigation would take awhile. There’s no evidence either way.
But we would accept your delay in hopes it results in a loss for you, even if you didn’t beat that dog.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Okay, then why are they not asking for or at least allowing the investigation?
There is no need for the investigation. None. The Democrats were all voting against his confirmation prior to the accusation. Even if he were completely cleared by the FBI, none of the Democrats will vote to confirm him.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
So, you actually think all of this is about votes instead of the qualities of a lifelong judge in the highest court?
The Democrats were already opposed to him prior to name being announced. It’s about partisan politics. Just like Neil Gorsuch.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
great video of Biden at the Thomas Hearing.
Sounds like it took place before Biden's mind got ate up with leftist-hate-zombie disease.
Sounds like it took place before Biden's mind got ate up with leftist-hate-zombie disease.
It is interesting to hear how people's opinion changed over time. Remember, Hillary R Clinton and the way she addressed the women who brought allegations against her husband, Bill Clinton? Now she says every woman should be believed.
If you go into that situation it saying "I'm a straight guy with a pulse that had fun with women in my youth and pot is awesome!" nobody will be in a position to bring it up in an attack and you'll have preemptively established it all as innocent fun. "Wear it as armor and nobody will be able to use it against you," to paraphrase Dinklage.
This is a troll attack. Just don't feed the troll. If you don't have evidence, real or fabricated and EVERYONE in the know calls you on it, as long as I don't respond it'll gain no traction and you'll just look like an idiot. That tactic works only because most politicians (discounting any driven by idealism) are only in politics becuase they failed in business (Joe Kennedy, Bill Clinton, the Bush dynasty, Trump, etc) and it remains the only path to wealth (as a lobbyist) and influence. Basically if a politician isn't driven by idealism, they're stupid and incompetent 9 times out of 10 so cheap shots like you suggested end up working.
This is exactly what is happening to Brett Kavanaugh. He's being accused of something that supposedly happened 36 or 37 years ago. Hell, the victim isn't even sure what year it happened. When Kavanaugh responded, he denied it happened. But the Democrats are saying that isn't enough. Christine Ford has nothing in the way of evidence. She can't say where it happened or when it happened. But the only detail she is sure of is that it was Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh. What makes her more credible than Judge Brett Kavanaugh?
My point... Responding in the absence of evidence is why the Dems latched onto it as a point of attack and why other women saw it as an opportunity to pile on. If the allegations are true, this would have ended up happening anyway but only once evidence was presented and that may well have happened after the confirmation. If untrue, he could have escaped this whole thing after a news cycle. Like most politicians, he's driven by ego rather than brains and so took the bait.
If Judge Brett Kavanaugh had not responded and the Republicans had not responded, the Democrats were not just going to go away after a news cycle or two. Even now they are still shouting from the rooftops that having the hearings isn't enough they want more.
The Dems can shout all they want, we have single party rule so it'd have been into the wind without evidence to justify it. His responding made him look defensive and thus guilty giving the Dems credibility even though no evidence beyond testimony has been presented.
John Cornyn just described the hearing as "a circus atmosphere". That is an understatement!
That is the bad news. The good news is that the Democrats are 100% to blame for it. The (hopefully) additionally good news is that the voters will hold them accountable in the mid-term elections.
That is the bad news. The good news is that the Democrats are 100% to blame for it. The (hopefully) additionally good news is that the voters will hold them accountable in the mid-term elections.
I do not think that it is a secret that the Democrats do not want anyone that President Trump named to make it to the Supreme Court. They've fought every nomination to just about every position that he's named.
Similar threads
