So in your scenario, what if the accuser is lying to spite the person trying to get the job? is that person just screwed with no way to prove his innocense?
Credible? no one remembers her version, even the ones she claims were there...she is only credible to democrats like yourself...
Why not just say you’re a biased prick who doesn’t care rather than insinuate that the reasonableness of thousands of lawyers and jesticeStevens is politically motivated. This turd would never be confirmed except by the Republican team cult.So in your scenario, what if the accuser is lying to spite the person trying to get the job? is that person just screwed with no way to prove his innocense?
Credible? no one remembers her version, even the ones she claims were there...she is only credible to democrats like yourself...
Why not just say you’re a biased prick who doesn’t care rather than insinuate that the reasonableness of thousands of lawyers and jesticeStevens is politically motivated. This turd would never be confirmed except by the Republican team cult.
McConnell just made the Senate confirm 15 more federal judges before it adjourns until after the midterms.
After today's confirmations, the Senate has confirmed 84 Trump nominees. Of those, 53 are trial judges, 29 are appeals judges and 2 are Supreme Court justices. I had no idea there were that many. I read elsewhere where Trump will have at least three judges heading to the 9th circuit.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/11/mitch-mcconnell-judges-midterms/
Same standards as far as i'm concerned. This wasn't a job interview, it was the Senate in their advise and consent role.You are confusing the standard that the government must meet in order to imprison someone against their will and the standard that it should meet to deny someone lifetime employment in a position of immense, unreviewable power.
If this sort of accusation was made against someone seeking employment in a local high school they would never get the job. Apparently you guys think the Supreme Court should have a lower standard. It is unclear to me why anyone would think this other than partisanship.
The same way we judge tons of things for which there is no concrete evidence either way. You have on one hand someone who brought up the accusation long before Kavanaugh was nominated to the court and who gave very credible testimony and then you have the guy where people from all over are saying 'he's lying'.
If you scrub away your imagined (D) and (R)s you'll see it's pretty obvious who is more credible. More importantly, this isn't something where rational people need 100% certainty. Like with the school example before would you hire someone if you thought there was a 50% chance they were a sex offender? 25% chance? Of course not. So why here?
Yep, the Democrats just got Mitchslapped againMcConnell just made the Senate confirm 15 more federal judges before it adjourns until after the midterms.
After today's confirmations, the Senate has confirmed 84 Trump nominees. Of those, 53 are trial judges, 29 are appeals judges and 2 are Supreme Court justices. I had no idea there were that many. I read elsewhere where Trump will have at least three judges heading to the 9th circuit.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/11/mitch-mcconnell-judges-midterms/
Yep, the Democrats just got Mitchslapped again
Reading the comments in this thread, it's quite clear that Taj's only motivation is hatred for his own countrymen. And that he's going to read this comment here of yours and feel justified in his hatred. Because yaknow, gotta do unto before done unto, right? Sad.Yup and I’m all for someone who hits back. I think there are many like me.
Yeah, 'methods over content' is only a Lefty thing when it's hacking the DNC or a Clinton. "No fair looking at the dishonesty that was found, Russiaaaaa!!!"Especially when the contents of the letter weren't accurate or fostered by false memories aided by a therapist. At least according to a Colbert writer , we ruined his life.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...-im-just-glad-we-ruined-brett-kavanaughs-life
Yeah, 'methods over content' is only a Lefty thing when it's hacking the DNC or a Clinton. "No fair looking at the dishonesty that was found, Russiaaaaa!!!"
lol
Sure, just like all accusations that turn out confirmed, apply appropriate consequences. I'd like to see the decoder chart for how many 'levels of bad' the method has to be above the contents to render those contents out of bounds. I mean, we don't want to talk about the sewer-level ethics of leaking debate questions to Clinton if they're discovered through swiss-cheese server security, amirite?We’ll surely you think multiple felonies committed by a hostile foreign power likely in coordination with the current president is a lot more interesting than the DNC being mean to Bernie Sanders, right?
I mean there’s a reason why so many Trump associates are headed to prison, lol.
Sure, just like all accusations that turn out confirmed, apply appropriate consequences. I'd like to see the decoder chart for how many 'levels of bad' the method has to be above the contents to render those contents out of bounds. I mean, we don't want to talk about the sewer-level ethics of leaking debate questions to Clinton if they're discovered through swiss-cheese server security, amirite?
Why do you hide behind a serial crisis mentality like bad things can't happen in parallel? It's like an old football playbook; who cares what x did, look how bad y is!!11!!1Do you even hear what you’re saying? You’re complaining about ‘sewer level ethics’ related to debate questions when it looks like the sitting president committed massive, felony tax fraud and that’s just scratching the surface.
It’s more a question of simply who gives a shit compared to that. What sane person would?
Sure, just like all accusations that turn out confirmed, apply appropriate consequences. I'd like to see the decoder chart for how many 'levels of bad' the method has to be above the contents to render those contents out of bounds. I mean, we don't want to talk about the sewer-level ethics of leaking debate questions to Clinton if they're discovered through swiss-cheese server security, amirite?
Great projection (by that I mean this thread is still going crazy because people like you can't 'get over' the fact that Kav won.)Desperately lame whataboutism. First off, she lost. Get over it. Beyond that, Clinton was told that there would be a capital punishment question in one instance. Do you really think she didn't have her position staked out well in advance? Of course she did. Don't be an idiot. In the other, she was told there would be a question about Flint water at a townhall... in Flint. I mean Duh! Of course she was prepared for that as well.
You go on as if telling her what she already knew was some kind of conspiracy. It's fucking ridiculous.
Great projection (by that I mean this thread is still going crazy because people like you can't 'get over' the fact that Kav won.)
Also, distinguished readers will note that my comment was about methods and content; not a speck about anyone winning or losing anything. But you already knew that didn't you!
lol
Your post was pure whataboutism based on false presumption that Clinton gained anything from knowing what questions would be asked. She already knew, and she knew the answers.
It is in no way comparable to the hacking of Dems' Senate computer files, using them to formulate counter measures & Kavanaugh claiming he had no idea how the information was obtained. It is in no way comparable to withholding the documentation Kavanaugh created in the process. It is in no way comparable to a privileged class drunken party animal frat boy claiming he was an innocent choir boy. It is in no way comparable to the fundamental misrepresentation of Kavanaugh created by the GOP.
What in the world middle class conservatives think they'll get out of this is beyond my comprehension. He'll rule against the little guy & for the right wing power elite every chance he gets.
That's cool, but you left out the leaking of Ford's letter (you know, the actual part A of the A/B anology?) It was claimed that righties were 'more worried about how that letter was leaked than what was in it'. I simply put the mirror of that same pattern in front of the sweaty collective face of the left. You can call it 'whataboutism' if you feel the need to contribute to PnN's ever-changing in-vogue words-of-the-week (what ever happened to 'optics' I wonder?) but that doesn't change what it actually is; a perfect analogy in pattern.
Also, if you weren't so tired you would have seen that I never said a word about the leaked debate questions helping Hillary but rather, the original analogy was based on the DNC lolhack helping the Repubs the same way the leaked letter helped the Outraged Left shoot a bunch of airballs in front of the entire world.
I'm so sorry we disagree hehe
"likely" is a lie. No proof. No evidence, just the same old Democrat talking points.We’ll surely you think multiple felonies committed by a hostile foreign power likely in coordination with the current president is a lot more interesting than the DNC being mean to Bernie Sanders, right?
I mean there’s a reason why so many Trump associates are headed to prison, lol.
"likely" is a lie. No proof. No evidence, just the same old Democrat talking points.