You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
PaSnow wrote:So I guess the only decision is if he goes thru or not.
IMHO I think the votes will be there.
Maybe...but it’ll be a dirty, dirty bath.
Poor guy...maybe he’s a solid dude...but man...the Dems are out for blood. And why shouldn’t they be?
Yea, fuck decency! Let’s just duke it out. We all know the moment real violence happens, far left wackos will be the ones to come out on top.
Re: US Politics Thread
I don't know what happened. I wasn't there. Is it possible he did it or did something? Absolutely. It's also possible he did nothing. Or something but not what was described. Here are the things I struggle with:
I didn't watch her testimony as I was working, but I saw some of his. I understand that the Republicans are upset about what they feel is a political sham. It might be. It might not be. I didn't catch the beginning, but when I did watch, all of the Republican senators were just attacking the Dems and making no effort to clarify the actual incident while trying to claim the moral high ground because they "investigated" it when they were made aware of it. I don't think anyone gets the moral high ground here. Had they handled themselves better, they probably had a claim to make, but their approach was terrible.
The Democrats weren't much better harping on how NOW they want an investigation when 2 weeks ago they couldn't be bothered to investigate anything. It just makes the accusations of this all being a stall tactic so easy. Hold onto the letter for over a month before the original hearing, then use it when that hearing doesn't go your way. Once it's out, you refuse to participate in an investigation, but now you want to claim the moral high ground because you want an investigation? No.
I'm sure her testimony wasn't handled any better. What bothers me about her story is that she can't really remember anything specific other than he was the one who did it and she's 100% sure of that. That's awfully convenient. She supposedly remembers who was there, but even her friend she was with apparently said she has no recollection of being at a party with him. Everyone was drinking. Nobody can corroborate ANY of her story. Everything is "well they had parties to bang chicks all the time" or whatever...just innuendo. This wouldn't have even made it to a court of law, but because the Dems feel they are entitled to destroy someone because they equate destroying someone to not having a vote on their person, all of this is okay.
I am pro-choice for the most part. I do believe that abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest, health of the mother/baby, etc. I do think the fathers should have rights too though in cases of legitimate pregnancies that the mother decides to end for no reason other than wanting to. I don't agree with my body, my decision in cases where the decision was made to have sex with someone and that decision was made willingly with complete consent. THAT was where you made your decision with your body. It sounds like BK is pro-life and might attempt to overturn Roe v Wade. I am not in favor of that, so I am not all for him getting appointed to the court. I think there are equally qualified people I would prefer. So I am completely fine with him getting rejected, but I am not at all happy with the way either side is handling this. This is everything wrong with politics today and further evidence that neither side is at all interested in what is best for the people.
Something may have happened to her. I don't know. None of us do. He may have been involved. I don't know. None of us do. The amount of people making decisions on this case not at all based on the evidence (because there really isn't any at this point) is disgusting. The people that believe her only believe her because it's in their interests to do so whether those interests are political or personal. Right now there isn't a shred of proof/evidence other than her word that he was involved with something that happened to her. That absolutely doesn't make him innocent. I don't know. None of us do. It's sad that otherwise intelligent people on both sides are making emotional decisions on something instead of even trying to make fact-based decisions. If you think he did it, prove it. Or don't even prove it, but have something - anything - that corroborates one person's statement of the events before doing what was done here. And if you think you're part of some political sham, prove it, don't just make accusations. Lay out facts that can't be denied. Make a case instead of yelling and screaming about it. People on either side will stop and listen to a reasonably presented case from either side. But that isn't how the political game is played now, is it?
Re: US Politics Thread
mitchejw wrote:PaSnow wrote:So I guess the only decision is if he goes thru or not.
IMHO I think the votes will be there.
Maybe...but it’ll be a dirty, dirty bath.
Poor guy...maybe he’s a solid dude...but man...the Dems are out for blood. And why shouldn’t they be?
Yea, fuck decency! Let’s just duke it out. We all know the moment real violence happens, far left wackos will be the ones to come out on top.
Oh you’re a big man aren’t ya...you are so tough that you’ll imply that you’ll kill fellow Americans because liberals are nothing but pussies.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
Richard Bluementhal, who lied about his service, Chris Coons, Corey Booker, and Kamala Harris are by far my least favorite dems on this panel. The lady from Hawaii and sometimes Dick Durbin are pretty band too.
Re: US Politics Thread
SG you missed a wild one in the AM. It was good overall, definitely a back & forth day. The attorney questioning for Repubs, went wayyy soft. Threw up softballs just asking she recall what she can etc... Seemed to play into the Dems hands. She was, believable, although the vocal fry/girlie voice didn't sit well with me. Obviously coached, imho a mistake, I think she would've been better off presenting herself as assertive. Anyway it ended with her being asked how sure, then the whole "100%". I went to lunch & 2 talk radio stations both said Dems won it, one citing it as 70/30 BK gets thru.
Where I feel Dems lost it was seemingly not questioning BK if he's lying under oath, is he 100% sure this never could've happened, and is he really an ideal fit for SC. I didn't watch it all, already sat thru a 1 hour intro in the morning, then BK did a 45 minute open I was gone by then. But to me, he didn't come off as scholarly, or a constitutional attorney, he came off like a whiny grown up jerk on the Peoples Court arguing over his lawn. I ddin't see him as an ideal selection and I think the Dems pressing him with "Keep in mind ytou are under oath" "Are you saying she is lying under oath" etc etc
I think the Dems focused on "He did it" when really the evidence is circumstantial, however that doesn't make him an ideal SC nominee. I think they missed the mark there & went all in on guilt.
Re: US Politics Thread
Richard Bluementhal, who lied about his service, Chris Coons, Corey Booker, and Kamala Harris are by far my least favorite dems on this panel. The lady from Hawaii and sometimes Dick Durbin are pretty band too.
I don’t think the republicans would care if he was dating children...they’re putting him on the bench no matter what happens or what comes out of this FBI investigation.
When the republicans backed trump they made it clear that don’t care about sketchy or even illegal behavior.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
Enough of people screaming at these dudes. The ladies in the elevator yelling at Flake. Get the fuck out of here. Jesus Christ. Anyway, fine, investigate. And when he is cleared again by the FBI, the dems will STILL bitch. Oh well. Coons is such a fucking pencil dick weasel and Feinstein’s Betty White act has grown old. Oh, and the new Slash album is FUCKING AWESOME!!!
Re: US Politics Thread
If he's cleared, there will be new allegations or something else. The only way he gets in is if the Republicans have the resolve to just do it because the Dems have made it clear that they have no issue playing as dirty as they need to to get their desired results. Flake got played by trying to be the nice guy. Look at mitch...he's the prime example. Well, the Reps started it by not confirming our guy, so it's totally okay to destroy someone they don't like because the Reps started it, right?
