Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Clean, Sep 6, 2018.
I'll take "Things They Didn't Say 18 Months Ago" for $600, Alex
She is absolutely correct. Tara Reade is far more credible than Blasey Ford. That's why her story should be taken more seriously.
Here she was 18 months ago
Wow, she is right again! D.C. doesn't care about the truth. She should just publish the headline because her reporting is all downhill from there.
Maureen Dowd is a c*nt.
Gorsuch was a much better choice than Kavanaugh for reasons unrelated to the allegations, I'll agree with that.
It's not clear if that was an admitted assault. "They let you grab them" could mean "When you're rich and powerful, you can do that without permission and they'll have to let you get away with it" or "Women consent to a lot more stuff when you're rich and powerful". Both of which are largely accurate evaluations of reality. I don't have any idea which he was referring to.
That's an insult to c*nts.
Followed by people coming up with dozens and dozens of examples of when they did in fact say "all".
So if it is your assumption, isn't it your assumption for ALL? Sounds like that is inferred. Her argument is worth as much as Blaisey Ford's accusations.
I have no idea who used the term "all" or left it ambiguous. The double standard is very clear. With Ford, they accepted her story as fact despite overwhelming evidence to reject it. With Reade, they focused mostly on the evidence to reject it (which was a tiny fraction of what existed in Ford's allegation). Once they couldn't deny her story with a straight face, they decided they didn't care if she was telling the truth. Like I mentioned before, they've essentially admitted that their outrage about sexual assault has nothing to do with sexual assault. It is a political tool - nothing more.
Don't worry, the Twitter thread is full of tons of people answering that question.
The argument over the word "all" is a classic diversion.
What? Believe women now infers ‘some’ women? This is beyond the pale.
Bill Clinton is impressed.
More importantly it infers to disbelieve some women namely those accusing Democrats of sexual assault.
They can dress it up all they want. They can spin all they want. They can rationalize all they want.
Their positions changed because the accused is a D rather than an R. Period. End of story.
Just another reason not to care about Twitter.
Holy ****. Read this about the plan to take down Kavanaugh.
I Knew the Name of the Dragon | The Stream
This should have alerted Americans to the depths the Dems were willing to go.
Maybe if we had acted on the foreshadowing Dems showed we could have minimized enough of the cheating.
Now we get the in your face destruction going on in Az, likely other places.
And then he votes not to even hear evidence of election fraud/interference.
Oh, but I'm sure I will be schooled on how he is so honorable for doing that.
The Bork confirmation battle is considered the ultimate dirty fight in a judicial nomination. It was a friggin picnic compared to the Kavanaugh fight.
This is sad and stupid
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) is asking Attorney General Merrick Garland to help facilitate “proper oversight” into the FBI’s 2018 background check of Brett Kavanaugh during the Supreme Court justice’s confirmation hearing, suggesting that the investigation may have been “fake.”
In a letter to Garland, Whitehouse expresses concern that some witnesses who wanted to share their accounts with the FBI allegedly could not find anyone at the bureau to accept their testimony and that no one had been assigned to accept or gather evidence.
Whitehouse Calls for Review of ‘Fake’ FBI Background Check into Kavanaugh in 2018 | National Review
TDS is deep and making people bitter .
This is about long term political narrative setting. When a Democratic accuser is discredited and fails, the most partisan Democrats try to build a case to divert attention away from the discrediting and try to get people to focus on some other issue to rehabilitate the accuser so that history will be more favorable to her and less favorable to the falsely accused. Next time they get a liberal woman to lie about a Republican judicial nominee, they want to be able to say, "let's not mistreat this 'victim' like we mistreated Christine Blasey Ford.". They did the same thing with Anita Hill.
The silliest part about all of this was how unimportant it all was.
Once Kavanaugh was confirmed, the coward John Roberts just stopped pretending to be a conservative, and went full leftist, to counteract even the mild rightward tilt of Kav compared to Kennedy. It was still a 5 vote leftist court.
Besides, I'm still not convinced that Kav will ever be the deciding vote on anything that actually matters to the Left - abortion (the most holy of all constitutional rights according to them), guns, illegal aliens or the dead voting, etc. I look at him, and see someone who spent his whole life ingrating himself into the DC ruling class. That's why he was so shocked and hurt that after a lifetime of being one of the club, they turned on him at a moment's notice during his hearing.
But that's been a few years, lots of dinner parties and social events since then. Can he stand up to the fury of the ruling class, who will send hate and vileness towards him, his wife, and his children, with a SC ruling that goes against their wishes? Or will he weasel out via standing, mootness, sending the case back to a lower court, and other cowardly methods?
I'm betting on him being a coward. Hope I'm wrong.
This popping reminds me how much I don’t miss that one guy.
I see the left questioning who paid for kavanaughs various upscale things. I assume family money. Interesting how that’s not considered an option by the left.