Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And everyone at the recent gathering of upstanding and intelligent people I was at was talking about how they don't blame him for getting upset about the unsubstantiated charges made against him and would have been perplexed had he taken the accusations with stoicism or good humor.
All types out there it seems.
No, or rather, yes ... there are two issues here: one, Kavanaugh's emotionality, and the other, the seemingly partisan remarks. Folks seem to be cross-discussing on this forum.
Some have written with passion about unsubstantiated allegations involving friends or family-members or their concern that allegations can derail someone's future. That I get and appreciate why it might drive their assessment of this issue. Others (that include myself) have seen or heard of so many instances like that described by Ford that they don't find THAT possibility unlikely.
Both are societal problems - but the introduction of possible partisan bias (that differs from legal positioning) into the SCOTUS is a separate issue.
Me, I don't have a strong opinion. Curious, I tracked down a Time article that presented the history of past SCOTUS rejections and nomination withdrawals but I haven't taken the time to listen to to *all* of Kavanaugh's testimony and cross-match the two to form that opinion about whether Kavanaugh crossed some line.
OTOH, I've read Flake's comments so, yes, think it a possible issue.
I will say, though, that some posters' comments that the Democrats now deserve "revenge-decisions," that Kavanaugh can no longer be expected to be judicially objective based on Feinstein etc. to be a bit unsettling. If they believe THAT, then there should be a down-vote. No matter how unfair a charge may have been, simple morality demands a judge rise above it.
Maybe that's not human nature, but this is the SCOTUS where determinations impact the lives of millions.
OMG.. Avenatti cannot stand the fact that Stormy is out of the news which means he is as well. He should have stopped with his original loony "client" Swetnick. Now, this new victim, knew both Dr. Ford and Swetnick for years... Did Dr. Ford know Swetnick? I have never heard this revelation before. AND, of course she has first hand knowledge of Kavanuagh spiking the punch! Because his original client stated she did too in her affidavit (oh sorry, "became aware of") and later retracted and said she saw him standing by the punch box (not bowl).
Its pretty easy to spike a punch bowl. A punch box not so much.
No, or rather, yes ... there are two issues here: one, the emotion, and the other, the seemingly partisan remarks. Folks seem to be cross-discussing on this forum.
Some have written with passion about unsubstantiated allegations involving friends or family-members or their concern that allegations can derail someone's future. That I get and appreciate why it might drive their assessment of this issue. Others (that include myself) have seen or heard of so many instances like that described by Ford that they don't find THAT possibility unlikely.
Both are societal problems - but the introduction of possible partisan bias (that differs from legal positioning) into the SCOTUS is a separate issue.
Me, I don't have a strong opinion. Curious, I tracked down a Time article that presented the history of past SCOTUS rejections and nomination withdrawals but I haven't taken the time to listen to to *all* of Kavanaugh's testimony and cross-match the two to form that opinion about whether Kavanaugh crossed some line.
OTOH, I've read Flake's comments so, yes, think it a possible issue.
I will say, though, that some posters' comments that the Democrats now deserve "revenge-decisions," that Kavanaugh can no longer be expected to be judicially objective based on Feinstein etc. to be a bit settling. If they believe THAT, then there should be a down-vote. No matter how unfair a charge may have been, simple morality demands a judge rise above it.
Maybe that's not human nature, but this is the SCOTUS where determinations impact the lives of millions.
Yes we all discussed the duality of the issue with wit, insight and aplomb and came to wildly different conclusions than your own group of peers. Then we participated a rousing and refreshingly competitive match of cornhole.
During the interview process 3 women accuse me of sexual misconduct.
You forgot to mention:
None of these women are remotely credible, have personal and psychological issues of their own, and have political motivations for accusing you of misconduct.
OMG.. Avenatti cannot stand the fact that Stormy is out of the news which means he is as well. He should have stopped with his original loony "client" Swetnick. Now, this new victim, knew both Dr. Ford and Swetnick for years... Did Dr. Ford know Swetnick? I have never heard this revelation before. AND, of course she has first hand knowledge of Kavanuagh spiking the punch! Because his original client stated she did too in her affidavit (oh sorry, "became aware of") and later retracted and said she saw him standing by the punch box (not bowl).
Its pretty easy to spike a punch bowl. A punch box not so much.
Yeah...…...hate to keep repeating this, but those are exactly the sorts of things the Dems said about him when he was calm during the Fox interview with him and his wife before the testimony at the hearing.
Cant have it both ways.
No, that is how Trump felt about his Fox interview.
The overwhelming Democratic perspective on the interview was that he downplayed his drinking and made that period of his life more about volunteer work and bible thumping. Noting that he painted himself into a corner by doing so.
OMG.. Avenatti cannot stand the fact that Stormy is out of the news which means he is as well. He should have stopped with his original loony "client" Swetnick. Now, this new victim, knew both Dr. Ford and Swetnick for years... Did Dr. Ford know Swetnick? I have never heard this revelation before. AND, of course she has first hand knowledge of Kavanuagh spiking the punch! Because his original client stated she did too in her affidavit (oh sorry, "became aware of") and later retracted and said she saw him standing by the punch box (not bowl).
Its pretty easy to spike a punch bowl. A punch box not so much.
Bret Kavanaugh was standing by the punch at a party 36 years ago!!!
Rush keeps calling her Christine Ballsy Ford.......kinda funny.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
