The Kavanaugh/Ford Hearing
What was the purpose of that hearing? In my opinion it was a dog and pony show that served no purpose and had no mission statement. It proved absolutely nothing. However it did give those who are worried about the mid-terms something to ponder. The judge is a shoe-in to be elevated to the highest court.
In the final analysis, it doesn't matter where the truth is, he will be confirmed. The GOP has the firepower. I think the only new thing that came out of the hearing is the term about the democrats called "search and destroy." You can be sure that will be entered into the GOP playbook and used many times from this point forward.Peoplepower73:
You say:
The hearing gives those who are considering the mid-terms something to think about. (Like what? How bad the Republicans are?)
It is guaranteed that Brett K. will be confirmed for the highest court because the Republicans have the power. (Not necessarily. What a victim mentality this comment reveals.)
The "search and destroy" tactics of the democrats will be used by Republicans for years to come. ( I call it crucifixion and no they WILL NOT stoop to this.)
How dare you!It is not guaranteed if only one or two Republican senators vote against the nomination.
The two women Republican senators are known to have concerns, especially Susan Collins.Oh, now we're creating moral equivalencies? As if the Republicans are somehow better than the Democrats? Remember, your president is a pussy-grabbing, porn star screwing, dirty-mouthed man-child. Further, the Republicans created this scenario by blocking the legitimate nomination of Merrick Garland.
And people are coming out of the woodwork now about Kavanaugh. He was the quintessential drunk frat boy. Of course he denies nearly raping anyone. He can't remember all the nights he was black-out drunk. He legitimately doesn't remember.
Why is this so hard. A conservative is going to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. All Trump has to do is go find someone who wasn't a drunk women-assaulter.I suppose the idea of fairness is lost on the left. I get it. When the democrats are in power it's lost in the right.
How very sad."Oh, now we're creating moral equivalencies? As if the Republicans are somehow better than the Democrats? Remember, your president is a pussy-grabbing, porn star screwing, dirty-mouthed man-child. Further, the Republicans created this scenario by blocking the legitimate nomination of Merrick Garland."
That's all that needs to be said. You have no moral standing on politics if you still support Trump. And, now they are outraged at the politics of attempting to block Supreme Court nominees. The hypocrisy is mind-numbing, and Trump supporters who pay attention at all know this. They just choose to overlook it.I would have said you have no moral standing if you support half of that committee refusing to do their appointed task as employees of the United States people. You have no moral standing if you support their activities in intentionally ruining lives for political gain. You have no moral standing if your hatred of Trump results in such pathetic and destructive behavior as we saw yesterday by the entire Democratic lineup.
I don't support any of the circus. But, I do think Trump's lack of morality and good judgement has accelerated the buffoonery of our national govt.
Kavanaugh said that boofing means flatulence and devils triangle means a drinking game. However, the urban dictionary defines boofng as anal sex and devils triangle as two guys having sex with one women. Here is my source.
Sorry I have to stoop to this level, but in my opinion the Trump era causes us to get down in the mud. He is not a very good role model for the country with his lack of morality, even for those who choose to look the other way.
https://www.newsweek.com/devils-triangl … gh-1142748At the very least, he is a liar, under oath no less.
That alone should be enough to disqualify him.Yup...but lying is the new truth..it's the Christian thing to do. I guess you didn't get the message.
The message I've gotten from Trump supporters and Brett defenders is that lying is acceptable and sexual assault is acceptable, for both the highest office in the land and the highest court in the land. Their "standards" are crystal clear.
Of course, Kavanaugh is a liar. He is GUILTY AS SIN regarding Ms. Ford & the other witnesses. He engaged in the behavior mentioned.
Ummm...Did you use a dictionary from 35 years ago, and dedicated to the East?
Most of us know definitions, especially teenage slang, change and are VERY region specific. Personally, I never heard either term and I was still young then.
(According to "urbandictionary.com", "boofing" does not refer to anal sex at all).Yeah, yeah, I know. Trump doesn't lie....Brett doesn't lie....
Sorry. Should have known better than to question anything negative about anything connected to Trump.
My apologies.This is about political maneuvering on both sides. Look at what the GOP did to the Obama and the Merrick Garland nomination. Mitch McConnell invoked the "Biden Rule." which he used improperly to delay the Merrick vote. So now it is the left's turn to try to delay kavanaugh's, appointment as long as possible. As they say, turnabout is fair play.
This is all about controlling the balance of power in The Supreme Court. If Garland was confirmed, it would have changed the balance towards liberals. Neil Gorsuch was confirmed immediately after Trump took power.
With Trump’s appointment of Neil Gorsuch, the right has Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch. Kennedy retired and if Kavanugh gets appointed to replace him, there will be five conservative judges.
The left has Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor. These four generally follow the dogma of the old Warren courts from the 1960’s which oversaw the expansion of civil rights, and gave us Roe v. Wade. The left is afraid that Kavanaugh will be the tipping point to repeal Roe v. Wade and many other liberal programs.
The latest is Trump has given the order to have the FBI investigate both parties testimonies. With only five days or less to complete their investigation. Some are now saying, it would take more than five weeks to do a thorough investigation.Mostly I agree, albeit without the implied support and approval for "getting even". Personally I find that quite detrimental to the country (and certainly to two innocent families this time around), ridiculous and nothing but an excuse for poor behavior and not doing the job. Two year old's fighting in the sandbox.
You're right - it is about SCOTUS. It's about loading the Supreme Court with judges that will judge along ideological lines rather than law. It's about perverting the constitution to support party ideology.
Trump has given the order (you say - I haven't seen anything yet)...and it took Democrats only minutes to say that the week they asked for isn't enough - that they need until after the election. When they hope to avoid confirming an excellent choice completely - and we're right back to demanding judges that will judge by ideology rather than law.
Send them ALL home - what we have now for a legislature is worse than nothing.
Ouch, yeah...good catch. It gets worse each day and they keep pointing the finger at others. I know right from wrong. I don't care if 90% of Americans don't.
"Remember, your president is a pussy-grabbing, porn star screwing, dirty-mouthed man-child."
And therefore Kavanaugh is unfit to serve. Good thinking!"Further, the Republicans created this scenario by blocking the legitimate nomination of Merrick Garland."
Sorry, poor behavior from one (person, party, country, whatever) neither creates nor excuses poor behavior by others. Each is responsible for their own actions, no one else.
Anyone who reads enough American history should find that search and destroy in politics goes all the way back to the country's independence.
If voters want civility in politics, they have to demand it from both parties.Closest I've seen to that is "We must demand civility, but your politician did it so it's OK for mine to do the same".
By people on both sides. Anyone who says the other side is always wrong is simply a closed-minded political bigot.
Absolutely. Both sides are 100% guilty. It is up to "the people" to clean up the swamp - will we begin in Nov by voting in all new legislators? Experience says "No". "Your man did bad so I'll leave mine there to do it for me".
I agree with you (Don't fall off your chair!) - it was a political show for power. Democratic questions of Ford were non-existent while each Senator gave a nice speech indicating sorrow about her plight. Republican questions through the prosecutor were valid and reasonable, though, looking for credibility and facts.
Democratic questions of Kavanaugh were limited to "Why won't you play our political game delaying your confirmation and request a FBI hearing?" while Republican questions were (almost) limited to sorrow and apologies coupled with speeches attacking Democratic handling of the information. While there was considerable validity (IMO) in those attacks and they DID point out how it was a game to some Senators, they did not search for truth or credibility; the purpose of the meeting was lost in attacking political rivals.You answered your own question, it is all about political maneuvering, it is all about maximizing the negative views not on Kavanaugh, who wasn't their primary target... but the ability of the Democrats to paint the Republicans as enemies of women, those who have been victims, etc.
No other explanation suffices, there is no reason why they held these accusations back, if not for maximum political effect and damage to the Republicans. Putting them in a bind. If these charges had been lain out weeks prior, that would have given everyone concerned plenty of time to investigate the charges and still be confident about their decision to confirm or deny his seat.But in reality, republicans are indeed the enemies of women: Republicans are trying to control women's bodies and rights through the supreme court, limit their access to critically important healthcare and just look at that unbelievable display of misogyny and disrespect all those elderly, white racist in some cases senile men horribly exhibited at the Kavanaugh charade yesterday:
Will you next add Tea Party members? Atheists? Anyone in the Elks club or that was a boy scout?
Pretty you'll be the only one left; the Supreme Arbiter of All That Is Moral in this country and ranting about every other person.
Very silly and disingenuous comment. Jake only mentioned Republicans. It is a fact that Republican legislators at both the state and federal levels are the ones repeatedly enacting or attempted to enact laws that limit a woman's ability to obtain an abortion, that attempt to defund Planned Parenthood and other programs that help women, that attempt to limit health insurance coverage for birth control, and more.
These are real issues that affect women's daily lives and Republicans are almost entirely responsible for these actions.Well, it started with Trump long ago. Then any of Trump's family. Then anyone connected to Trump in any way. Then all Republicans - half the country. The logical progression is to include everyone but himself in his rants, isn't it?
It is a fact that "the rest of the country", meaning Demcrats, are tryiing to make all bathrooms unisex. Democrats continue to demand more and more of what we build for ourselves. Democrats wish us to support millions and millions of illegal aliens.
Believe it or not, as you wish, but there are more issues in this country than abortion; more even than those termed "women's issues". One of them is that a mere unsupported allegation is sufficient now to ruin lives and prevent employment. Another is the continued notion that if legislators refuse to do their job it's a good thing.Of course, but he was specifically addressing women and how many of us view Republicans. Access to affordable birth control and the ability to make your own decisions about your own pregnancy shouldn't be an issue in this day and age. Republicans continue to make them an issue. This is not 1950 but it seems many Republicans wish it were.
Add to that Republican support for a self-admitted sexual assaulter for president, rushing through an accused sexual assaulter for a lifetime appointment to the SC, Republican voters selecting an accused pedophile for their Senatorial candidate....the record is clear. Republicans are not supportive of women in this current political atmosphere.
At least Senator Flake allowed himself to act his conscience yesterday so maybe there is hope.
Ed Fisher (aka ahorseback), Yes I'm back. Tell me how was the judge deprived of life, liberty, and property in this hearing that is not even a judicial court?
due process of law:
n. a fundamental principle of fairness in all legal matters, both civil and criminal, especially in the courts. All legal procedures set by statute and court practice, including notice of rights, must be followed for each individual so that no prejudicial or unequal treatment will result. While somewhat indefinite, the term can be gauged by its aim to safeguard both private and public rights against unfairness. The universal guarantee of due process is in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides "No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," and is applied to all states by the 14th Amendment. From this basic principle flows many legal decisions determining both procedural and substantive rights."All legal procedures set by statute and court practice, including notice of rights, must be followed for each individual so that no prejudicial or unequal treatment will result. While somewhat indefinite, the term can be gauged by its aim to safeguard both private and public rights against unfairness. "
While still incomplete, the now stated and obvious intent is to deprive Kavanaugh of employment. It is also deprived him of the liberty he once had to coach and to teach. These things are being done without trial by peers, without proof of wrongdoing; they are extremely "prejudicial and unequal" for they ignore the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" that are all afforded. The actions taken go to great length to bypass and ignore "rights against unfairness"; the goal is to avoid "fairness" if at all possible.
Now you can complain and whine that the goal is NOT to delay Kavanaugh's confirmation until after the mid-terms in the hope he won't be confirmed at all, but not a single thinking, honest person will believe you. Your choice.Wilderness:
1. Was Hillary innocent with Bengahzi until proven guilty? No. She was presumed guilty for three years with Bengahzi and then after three years of wasting tax payers money Troy Gowdy admitted there was no wrong doing and he just gave up.
2. You are right, this hearing was not a trial, it was not even a court of law. It was a dog and pony show. Therefore there was no presumption of innocence or guilt on either side.
3. You are telling me he still can't be employed as a judge or a coach and teach because of this hearing? Those are all statements that he made by his demeanor in the hearing. No one is depriving him of anything other than what he believes he is being deprived of.
4. However, here is something to ponder. He was under oath to tell the truth. If in fact in the FBI investigation, if they find out he was lying about the definition of Boofing and the Devils Triangle, then he has perjured himself.
It doesn't matter when he wrote that in his calendar. What does matter is that under oath, in this moment in time, he lied because he was trying to protect himself and his family from embarrassment.1. Are you trying to excuse bad, completely reprehensible, behavior because someone else in the past did it? By that reasoning you can validate slavery.
2. Again, you have GOT to be kidding. The questions asked, if nothing else, clearly show a presumption of innocence of Ford and guilt of Kavanaugh...by Democrats. And the behavior/questions of Republicans clearly show a presumption of innocence of Kavanaugh. You know that, I know that - the whole world knows that. Why would you make such a statement? This is not a political arena and I'm not a politician; you don't have to pose for the cameras and you don't need to posture. It only hurts your debate points.
3. He will likely not get the job on SCOTUS now, and almost certainly would have. Few locations will hire or use a convicted sex criminal as a small girl's soccer coach. Most schools will not hire a convicted sex criminal. And make no mistake - is has absolutely been convicted in the minds of millions upon millions of democrats. Just as the Democratic committee members intended and as you intend with your comments.
4. And your point? That IF proven guilty he is guilty of perjury as well? Does that include if no evidence is found of guilt then Ford is guilty of perjury...and slander as well?
Thank you. The last sentence shows exactly what I said; he is convicted in the minds of millions without a single shred of evidence. We might as well add in that evidence showing his innocence "doesn't matter", for you just stated that as well.
The same Bill Clinton who got impeached for consensual sex with an intern? That Bill Clinton?
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
0Kavanaugh's character assassinators are going to pay dearly in November . You are all ignoring the dems who believe Kavanaugh's testimony .
It's INSANE that Bret Kavanot is STILL under consideration by Russian republican congress persons to actually sit on our supreme court !! Given the strong evidence against him and his mentally disturbed unhinged demeanor at the republican sham hearing the other day, he should absolutely be impeached from his current position !!
Allison Burnett
Verified account
@Allison_Burnett
Follow Follow @Allison_Burnett
More
Buckle your seatbelt: I just heard from an impeccable FIRSTHAND source that @MichaelAvenatti's client's claims are true. The culture at Georgetown Prep was debauched and sexually criminal.Only a "gentleman's code" keeps it secret. Ideally this is the week that it ends.
4:32 PM - 28 Sep 2018 from Los Angeles, CA
6,904 Retweets 23,399 LikesNow Twitter too becomes the court choice of a trial by media and social media especially ?
There is no shame in liberal tactics .As opposed to Pizzagate, Benghazi, etc? The thing is many of these Trump related rumors are proving to be true, even according to the FBI, federal prosecutors, juries, etc. Republicans played dirty with fantasies. My bet is Avenatti has something if he says so...tapes, etc. You see these things are real, not fantasy that's been dis-proven by years of FBI investigations.
We'll see how this plays out.I attended the University of Oregon from 1979-1983. It was known as a party school (the movie Animal House was filmed there). I saw drunken, criminal behavior committed by mostly boys (but, yes, a few girls, too). The culture was such that, unless it was directly witnessed by university staff, it was useless to report or complain. I was lucky that I came from a lower middle class blue-collar background and had a natural aversion to the frat/sorority culture. Still, it was hard to avoid witnessing some of their behavior or hearing about bad things that happened to girls, or boys who were hospitalized from hazing.
I have no problem believing these things happened.Some people consistently reject any accusation of rape or sexual assault, especially for their favorite politicians.
Otherwise, they minimize or rationalize the behavior, i.e., our esteemed President. Oh, it happened years ago, so just get over it.
Or maybe they think sexual assault and rape are no big deal.
They'll change their minds fast if it happens to someone close to them.Some do. And some...some greedily reach for any accusations of rape or sexual misbehavior as long as it concerns someone of a different political persuasion.
Pretty common, I'd say, and we see it even with the few participants here, don't we?
I fully understand this, as much as I possibly can, being a man.
Attending college in Indiana in the early 90's seemed to be very little different, and I came from the same type of blue-collar background. I found myself at a couple frat parties and it was ridiculous. I think I was thrown out of each of these parties I came to be at...I wasn't a saint but the idiocy just pissed me off so I told them they were idiots...lol. I can certainly see Kavanugh as one such disrespectful punk that had to have his buddies at his back at all times."I can certainly see Kavanugh as one such disrespectful punk that had to have his buddies at his back at all times."
Why? Did you know him? Do you know enough Yale graduates that you feel it reasonable to apply a characterization of one graduate to all of them? Are you just biased against anyone with wealthy parents? In your mind is anyone that drinks beer a "disrespectful punk that had to have his buddies at his back at all times."? Do you have evidence that Kavanaugh never left home without multiple "buddies at his back"?
What reasoning do you utilize to conclude Kavanaugh is/was a "disrespectful punk that had to have his buddies at his back at all times."
Or is it just irrational hatred of Republicans, Trump, wealthy people or all conservatives?It's my opinion based on the the things he said and the way he acted in front of the Senate committee and my experiences. Not complicated. I don't think I said anything about all Yale grads. Geesh...and I thought liberals were supposed to be the PC police.
I see. I was grasping for possibilities, that's all. Curious, though, that you could look at something like 2 hours of speech in a criminal hearing and decide that the man was a punk 35 years ago. You must be really good!
He's a punk now is what I said. But, generally, once a punk always a punk..I think it's a genetic trait. Yes. that's my opinion also. It doesn't take that good to see through snivels who likes beer, the yearbook, etc. Like I said, an educated opinion. Is Brett your old drinking buddy or what?
You have eyes, ears, and a brain, and you use them.
What you said is "I can certainly see Kavanugh as one such disrespectful punk that had to have his buddies at his back at all times."
The term "had" is past tense, which you should know as a writer. In addition the context was at frat parties in the college years; again, Kavanaugh in his far past.
Fascinating. Do you apply the "iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations" or leave it at only 2 generations? How long do you see the "punk" gene lasting, and is it recessive or dominant (was his mother a punk, too)?
Well, it's an uneducated opinion, at least! That you can't read what you wrote, that you think you can tell the distant past character from current character and that you believe "punkness" is a genetic trait all has something to say about that, doesn't it?Geez, wilderness, why are you so intensely defending a guy who lied under oath? I recall you doing the same thing with George Zimmerman after he shot a teenager. How'd that work out for you?
Can you repeat his lies?
No, you did NOT see me defending a guy that lied under oath in the Zimmerman case: you saw me defending the legal concept of "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". Just as I'm doing here - when you produce those "lies" make darn sure you can support your stance, including over the 35 year period.
Even the ABA has its reservations. You are oddly overly offended by my calling this guy a punk. I can't even read your entire diatribe...my opinion is he's a punk and probably was in the past as well, I stated that in my last post...PC or not. Why do you care so much what I think to carry it on like this? Hitting a nerve for sure and taking the genetic trait comment way too seriously..chill...maybe watch a Clint Eastwood movie...he make's quick decisions on who a punk is...lol. Sometimes it's just evident.
Yeah. I got your opinion. My question is what caused that opinion - what the reasoning process was.
And your reply is that "Like father like son" (without knowing the father), "punk now = punk 35 years ago in school" and "there is a punk gene".
Which, in turn tells me what I wanted to know: you have zero real reason for saying it; any justification you have rationalized is within your own mind and cannot be supported in reality. There is thus no reason to think Kavanaugh is, or ever was, a "disrespectful punk that had to have his buddies at his back at all times"; any such claims are irrelevant and without basis.Dude, wow. It could be a genetic trait you know..I'm not even sure how you define "punkness." I have my definition and with the way you're behaving, I'm not explaining it to you as you clearly won't understand. You're taking me calling this guy a punk, with no real recognized universal definition and arguing the point?
He's a punk punk punk punk punk, lol.No need to repeat: as I say, I got the message quite clearly already.
You know, others have said they think he's a "punk", or "entitled" or other denigrations, but they all seem to be basing their opinion on the fact his parents were richer than they are and he was good enough and smart enough to graduate from an ivy league school.
As nasty, as foolish and as obnoxious as those reasons are, they have to beat a proposed "punk" gene or deciding that a father was a "punk" so as to give reason to decide his child was as well. I got the message; you don't need valid reasons to denigrate, degrade and vilify Kavanaugh. If you can't find valid reasons, you will make up this excuse or that, complete with a rationalization.
Only problem is that I'm not interested in your hate, I'm not interested in your excuses or your crazy rationalized "reasons". I'm not interested in degrading either Ford OR Kavanaugh - just in trying to understand if Ford's story is true, part true, or a total fabrication of a 15 year old mind under tremendous stress. I'd also like to have a better feel for the machinations and shenanigans being played out in that committee; such things are extremely detrimental to us all and we should all be qualified to see and understand them when they occur.
But I'm not interested at all in your foolish, exaggerated, hateful mud slinging.I read the first and last sentences. If you're not interested in my opinions, which I based on watching the hearing, then don't comment. I have my reasons for calling the guy a punk. He acted like one. You can call that hateful mudslinging, I don't care. I call it my opinion of who I think is a dirt bag. I have a pretty good feel for these things, and we are likely to see my opinion validated more and more in the future.
Also, your fixation on my opinion is ugly. There are plenty of conversations here to stimulate your intellectual curiosity...move on.
He's a PUNKCrying on national TV cause you might not get Supreme Court is. And dodging questions is.And the things he was associated with in the yearbook are punkish. He can't even look someone in the eye and state, look, if I did something like this, I was a kid and I've changed. He makes it all about him and his family. In a criminal court this is how you get a maximum sentence.
So what if he didn't do it , what if Ford is a nut job , a "fatal attraction ",what if the place for sexual assault allegations is in the justice system when they happen and not forty years later in the media ? You should know these possibilities , I thought you previously worked as some political wizard ? Kavanaugh has had six and now seven FBI background checks . I know though ..........whatever we do let's not count the reality of this situation , let's decide based on emotions and slander ,like "punk ".
He's a punk in my book based on how he behaved whether Ford is a liar or not. This really hurts the feelings of a couple guys here. If you don't think my statements have merit then don't respond. I'm more than fine with that...but I hit a nerve.
I give! We all give! Kavanaugh's life should be destroyed, his daughters hurt and wife devastated, because Hard Sun thinks he was a "punk" when he cried about his daughters pain.
Lol, there's that drama again. You're not being asked to "give." You can retain your own opinion. And I haven't seen hard sun say anything about destroying him or anyone else. You're really off the rails, wildrrness.
I didn't see your off the rails comment when I stated Crazytown. Are we witnessing some sort of breakdown? I seriously didn't think my opinion had that kind of power. I don't even take myself THAT seriously.
Maybe just not on the Supreme Court.... Who said destroy his life? I'm no one, why would you say that we should destroy his life based on my opinion. Crazytown
By comparison, I think many daughters have been through much worse. I don't feel sorry for him at all. Many individuals have been through much worse, in real courts, with no safety net...where their lives really are being destroyed and didn't snivel for sympathy.Absolutely! Other daughters have been hurt - his are of no account in that regard and deserve to be hurt because their father is a punk. I agree it's CrazyTown to think otherwise!
No actually your posts and all like them are hardly objective at all in this case and unworthy of "striking a nerve " , much like the who Ford testimony in answers , She used " I don't remember " too much to be believable . In fact I believe most future polls will show her entirely unbelievable .
You are certainly entitled to your opinion - make no mistake about that!
I'm just not much interested in it when there is no actual reasoning or facts to back it up. I try to base opinions on reality, something provable and factual, not a gut reaction. While it might have been useful in creating my own opinion were reason employed that does not seem to be the case, so you're right - move on to others that have something to contribute rather than just irrational dislike and name calling.If you want to see basing opinions on what I see and past experiences as gut feeling than cool. I'm confident in my "gut" just as Trump states he is. I think its irrationaly to believe otherwise.
Obviously, you feel I contributed something worth taking a good deal of time to respond to..so,???? Would you take so much time to rebuff those who stated they think Moore came off as a lyer?
You make me feel better about my "gut" opinion,Thank you. I've stated several times why I feel he is a punk. You've drawn a lot of attention to this comment and I appreciate it.
Take a look at this if you think "gut" doesn't matter. Maybe it will open your mind.
Trump reminds us that 'gut feeling' is still essential to politics
https://www.americamagazine.org/politic … l-politics
If more evidence surfaces about Kavanaugh, making my punk statement even more clear, I'll be sure to come here and rub it in. And others will be sure to remember I called him a punk.That's what I said; you "found" him a punk because you didn't like his demeanor. You declared him a punk 35 years ago because he was angry at being railroaded and his family being harmed for political purposes today. I got that.
I just disagree that it was a rational call; it was a call made purely out of the emotions it raised in you, and that's not something I would ever use to make a conclusion. I try (hard) not to use my own emotional make up to make conclusions; to use yours would be the height of folly.Gut is not just emotion, it's based on experience and what people see. You haven't even considered the link I offered. Why? Does it go against your gut feeling that it's not worth the time? You are validating my opinion with your endless protests. From my experience. once a punk always a punk. He is a punk, lol.
Hmm. Terminology - you want to exclaim that "gut" does not mean irrational emotionalism.
OK, let it mean that. Then I change my comment from gut to "irrational emotionalism".
Happy?
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Interesting that not many here wonder about a fifteen year old girl and HER judgement of going to any kind of drinking parties ? 1965 75 or 85 , there are always two people who're at these parties , boys and girls and all of the drinking and sexual games that go with them , for all we know Prof. Ford is a" jilted ex-lover "with a guilty conscience about her promiscuous years .
What took you so long? My money was on wilderness being the first to blame the girl, but you were my second choice.
I've been on these forums too long.Yeah...wow. I'm not Mr PC but implying a 15 year old girl deserved it or is lying cause she went to a party? Something else.
Wow. I'd have to say you are right.
You've been on these forums too long. That's really hurtful and when you've reached the point of posting intentionally hurtful crap you've been on here too long.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Fact not emoting , This is what The Economist thinks of the collective Kavanagh haters .This is not fact unless you're stating that it's a fact that this is The Economist's conglomeration of an aggregate of opinions that it assembled, on the probability of whether Kavanaugh will be affirmed. The chart is a survey of opinions.
That's all that can be said right now about the confirmation ...opinion, not fact, since he hasn't been affirmed. It's likely that many of these opinions have much of their basis in "emoting" since none of us have anywhere near all the facts.
My opinion is he likely will be affirmed. Just like I offered my assessment that he's a punk. It's all opinion.
You offered a good argument for including intuition in a decision.Ed and Wilderness: Many decisions throughout the ages have been based on wisdom driven by intuition. You guys call it opinion based on emotion. It is also called gut feelings.
Most decisions are based on not having all the facts and involve a degree of intuition or gut feeling. You make a choice and you make adjustments along the way to support your decision if things don't go as expected.
Trump made a decision to select Kavanaugh. Is it the right one? Who knows? Kavanaugh did state that he would allow Trump to be pardoned if he were impeached. Don't you think that factors into Trump's decision to select him?
I believe Kavanaugh acted like a punk in his teenage years based on his yearbook entries and his calendar. I also believe he lied under oath as to the meanings of many of the entries. If that is the case and the FBI comes to the same determination, I believe things will not bode well for him as he made those statements under oath.
We shall see how this plays out. My gut feeling is Trump will walk him through to become our next supreme court justice, no matter what the outcome from the FBI.Disagree. First, I see "intuition" as experience that cannot be readily put into words. Hidden deep within memory it is there but is not something that can be pulled out and be easily verbalized. It often isn't even used consciously.
Hard Sun, on the other hand, has (my intuition tells me
) gone into this with a predermination that Kavanaugh is not fit to sit on the court. I believe he would hold that opinion if neither Kavanaugh nor Ford had ever said a single word, including her allegations. An opinion based on idiotic media reports that he will kill people, end abortion and grant a pardon to Trump if he is ever impeached. One based on Kavanaugh being recommended by Trump and one of those nasty Republicans to boot He even says so (with regard to recommendation by Trump).. A different matter completely.Well, I'm glad you expressed yourself. Maybe you'll learn someday how intuition and data go together to form opinions...most people have them. Mine is just better than your "idiotic" biases. The world will move forward after, or before, the old folks die off either way.
Kananaugh is a punk..I didn't see the same for Gorsuch, another Trump nominee...you failed to quote me on that...though I'm flattered at your attempts to reconstruct my thinking.I wish someone could offer evidence. Hard evidence. This character assassination from nothing more than opinions looks more like vicious gossip run amok than clear judgment.
I call it how I see it...and the evidence is mounting..we'll see if Donny allows the "biased" FBI that helped win the election for him to do their jobs...that would help.
Also where were you when statements like these were made " for all we know Prof. Ford is a" jilted ex-lover "with a guilty conscience about her promiscuous years."
Trump is President...the king of viscous gossip, pussy grabbing, clownish behavior, all bets are off..this is what Trump voters invited...the Dems are playing hardball now and the R's don't like it."Also where were you when statements like these were made " for all we know Prof. Ford is a" jilted ex-lover "with a guilty conscience about her promiscuous years."
While technically true (it IS possible, just like Saturn being made of green cheese is) I haven't seen anyone make that foolish statement. The equivalent about Kavanaugh, yes, but never about Ford; I assume one doesn't do that to a lady in tears, only men with emotions.
What forums do you frequent where such accusations are made about Ford? The ones with Democrats crawling through the mud looking for that "hardball"?You can certainly make faces but, I grew up in the environment Ford did. Single sex prep schools, mixers and parties. I've watched behavior patterns and stories change after the fact. She needs to provide one piece of corroborating evidence. I, personally, think the only reason anyone is calling this woman's testimony credible is because of the current climate. Reason demands otherwise. Doesn't know where, when, how....just how drunk was she? How trustworthy could her recollection be if she can't provide one detail anyone can corroborate?
You missed the context.
Read Wildernesses' comment above it, in response to my quote that he says is akin to stating Saturn is made of cheese and I must have pulled the quote from some Democrat hate site, and you will understand what the face is about. Edit: my quote taken from another Hubber/ who is definitely not a DemocratI don't know. I would think, if that post were pertinent, she would have included it. She had no problem grabbing three. What's one more, if needed?
Are you serious? The three are directly below it and she includes the quote under question to show where it was obtained. Wilderness completely tried to call me out on pulling some mythical quote out of nowhere...something that he had even commented on.
I didn't respond as I didn't think it needed to be spelled out any further...huh.
How about she was first to testify and named the people that Kavanaugh knew? Kavanaugh then said he didn't watch her testimony because he was busy preparing his opening statement, but he then named the same people she did that were at that gathering. He was under oath, therefore either he did not watch her testimony or he was lying.
She knew Mark Judge and even confronted him in a market. This is before kavanaugh gave his opening statement. She had no prior knowledge of who he was going to name at that gathering. How could she know that? That was one hell of a coincidence or it was corroborating evidence.I know I should probably check on it peoplepower73, but I think the names she detailed in her testimony were previously publicly released - and commonly known - in her letter that was leaked to the media.
It would be nice if I were sure, but I think Kavanaugh had the chance to know those details before her appearance.
GAGA: I found a copy of the redacted letter if you want to read it. I have done a lot of searches and it's still unknown as to who leaked the letter and when the contents of the letter was leaked.
Additionally, I can't find any evidence as to how much Kavanough knew about who Ford mentioned in the letter. I'm hoping the FBI will sort all of this out. There is one thing that is clear. Somebody is lying.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/16/politics … index.htmlThis would certainly help get to the heart of the actual disturbing allegation made by Ford. In my book, Kavanaugh was already caught lying on ancillary issues. i.e. boofing, devil's triangle, drinking history, not blacking out, etc.
Ancillary issues like Ford's statements about her tremendous fear of flying...as she jets all over the world for entertainment? Or her statement that she was never told the committee would come to her?
Might be! As far as I've heard there is no evidence either way! Do you think we should kick it out of our solar system, or are those beautiful rings sufficient reason to allow it to float around a few more circles?
Dude, you have severe issues. You can't even man up and admit you made a rather dumb error, or a very dumb deliberate attempt to discredit me. I've made dumb errors here and even apologized to someone here that I don't often agree with politically.
No wonder you don't understand what a punk is. I don't converse with them, but I do converse with those who simply hold different views than me.
"Also where were you when statements like these were made " for all we know Prof. Ford is a" jilted ex-lover "with a guilty conscience about her promiscuous years."
While technically true (it IS possible, just like Saturn being made of green cheese is) I haven't seen anyone make that foolish statement. The equivalent about Kavanaugh, yes, but never about Ford; I assume one doesn't do that to a lady in tears, only men with emotions.
What forums do you frequent where such accusations are made about Ford? The ones with Democrats crawling through the mud looking for that "hardball"?
"OK..since IslandBites rererence seems to be lost. The quote came from here and you even commented on it as though you were offended by it.
ED FISHER WROTE:
Interesting that not many here wonder about a fifteen year old girl and HER judgement of going to any kind of drinking parties ? 1965 75 or 85 , there are always two people who're at these parties , boys and girls and all of the drinking and sexual games that go with them , for all we know Prof. Ford is a" jilted ex-lover "with a guilty conscience about her promiscuous years ."In the introduction to the this forum, I wrote that the senate Judiciary committee was just a dog and pony show and served no purpose. Since everything that has transpired, I have changed my mind.
I now see the Senate Judiciary committee as an employer interviewing a candidate for a job. Like any job opening, the employer may request references. There may be some good references and some bad ones.
I see Dr. Ford as a bad reference for Kavanaugh; while he has many good references for people that vouch for him.
The GOP employers are biased to get him nominated. The Dems are biased to delay his nomination as long as they can or get him replaced by a less conservative candidate.
What bothers me is the role of the prosecuting attorney and swearing in of contributors in a hearing, that is not a court of law. Unless there is action taken on those that have perjured themselves. Swearing in becomes worthless. The attorney questioned Dr. Ford more heavily than Kavanaugh. I think that was due in large part to Lindsey Graham and his tirade. After that there were no more questions from the attorney.
All that the FBI can do in their investigation is issue a 302 report of what they found. I don't believe anybody will be charged for criminal intent, even if they lied. Kavanaugh will become the fifth conservative supreme court justice and the court will be highly biased towards the right for at least my lifetime; Kavanaugh will pardon Trump of any grounds for impeachment and we will all live happily ever after.You say she asked more questions of Ford, than Kavanaugh; as if that were odd. Ford is alleging a criminal act. She bears some burden of proof. She clearly lied, on some items and was not able to provide one piece of evidence or one corroborating story. He denied the incident.
If someone were to accuse you of something you didn't do, couldn't say when or where, how would you defend yourself? What could they ask you if you denied knowledge? She outlined what she says happened and he said he had no recollection of it.
Considering the fact that it appears she was preparing for several months, prior to the accusation, this looks more and more like politics; not an attempt to find justice.What is the outcome if she was lying? Would she go to jail? What is the outcome if he was lying? Would he go to jail? I think not in either case.
That's why this is nothing more than some kind of hybrid job interview, cooked up by the GOP Senate to deal with accusations by someone who accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault.
That's why they have a prosecuting attorney that is powerless to do anything. If they ignored Dr. Ford, they would have the wrath of god come down on them in the form of the #metoo movement. They know that, so they were forced to go through the motions of caring.Peoplepower ,At least conservatives caved [again ] to the fallacy of these , so far , baseless charges . It IS all simply one more obstruction for Trump by your party . My guess is that this is going to propel Rep. into good standing in the midterms and backfire for dems . Lets face it , it's a time play for dems to prolong us all from having a full court in the chance of dem wins .
Ed: Let me remind you that Mitch McConnell invoked the "Biden Rule" which was not even a rule and used it to stop Obama from nominating Merrick Garland for almost a year.
As soon as Trump became president, they nominated Neil Gorsuch and boom, it was over for the Dems. So don't talk to me about obstruction. The GOP did everything in their power to try to make Obama an one term president. In spite of their efforts, he was elected for another term, but that didn't stop your buddies from obstructing his every move. Talk about hypocrisy!"He was bad to me so I have the right to be bad to him".
As an excuse it isn't bad; as an ethical statement from our vaunted leaders it can't get much worse.
I would say that the prosecutor was looking for truth of an accusation. Not a character exam. The Democrats, on the other hand, were looking to defame character - they seemed to simply assume that the story was true without need for corroboration. It was up to Kavanaugh to prove innocence rather than Ford to prove guilt.
Big difference, then, in what was being looked for, and that old thing about innocence and being proven guilty is in there. Kavanaugh does not have to prove innocence, so there isn't any reason to question him about details until those details and other evidence have been examined and found true "beyond a reasonable doubt".Wilderness: I believe what you said beyond a reasonable doubt holds true in a court of law. In my view this is not a court of law. It is a job interview. What prosecutorial rights does the Senate Judiciary Committee have? There is no judge, no jury, and no trial.
"In my view this is not a court of law. It is a job interview. "
I don't believe you. You know as well as the rest of us it is a delaying tactic to keep Kavanaugh off the bench, nothing more.
Would you treat your brother or sister this way? Guilty without any evidence whatsoever? Your neighbor? As an employer would you deny employment because a single person with an ax to grind said nasty things about a prospective employee? No you wouldn't (at least I hope and assume you wouldn't), yet Kavanaugh has been convicted and hung by a great many people out there.
As others have said, if he gets on the bench there will be a taint forever over SCOTUS, and I agree...but the taint should be on those responsible for the dirty politics employed to keep him off of it. It was irresponsible, disgusting and 100% out of line from people we trust to run our country. I absolutely hope for more from our representatives in congress (although I gave up long ago in expecting ethics and morals from them).
What bothers me is none of that is secret knowledge. Everyone would agree that is fair and reasonable. I've always said the two sides are similar in their partisan politics, but I have never seen anything this disgusting by the right.
I haven't either. I'll go so far as to say I've never seen anything this disgusting from either side, and I've made no secret of my almost total disgust with congress as a whole.
About the only left is false imprisonment and outright murder. Should be all be wearing bullet proof vests in case they come after us?"About the only THING left is false imprisonment and outright murder. Should WE all be wearing bullet proof vests in THE EVENT they come after US?" wilderness, (slightly corrected)
!Maybe I could get HubPro to check my forum posts?
I found the unredacted letter peoplepower73, but the only difference is that the redacted name is Mark Judge.
I was mistaken about the letter. But... I went back to your comment to find out what made me question your determination concerning how you were sure he lied.
It was this:
"... but he then named the same people she did that were at that gathering."
My recall is that Kavanaugh repeatedly testified he didn't know what specific event she was talking about. I do remember that he did not point to any night on his calendar as being that night.
I think your reference is to him naming those names - not sure it was the same four, (what made you sure he did rename the exact same four?), but I do recall hearing him mention several of the same names as friends in his circle that were included in other calendar listings.
Are you sure he named the same four for a particular event?
GA
Let's break it down, just on the weight of that post. You appeared to be making a face at the entirety of the three comments. It started with a comment on the credibility of the witness. Which got a snarky comment from someone else. Which elicited a response from another. The entire exchange began with questioning the credibility. You appear to be in agreement with the second poster. Since I think it is not only reasonable to question the credibility; but questioning the credibility is demanded by the information we have received thus far; no comment such as the one that followed should have been offered. I don't consider wilderness's input to be overly off base.
So, since your comment appeared to support the middle of the conversation; I commented. Reading is fundamental. Taking responsibility for your actions is also; as is taking any feedback offered without attempting to insult.
OK..since IslandBites rererence seems to be lost. The quote came from here and you even commented on it as though you were offended by it.
ED FISHER WROTE:
Interesting that not many here wonder about a fifteen year old girl and HER judgement of going to any kind of drinking parties ? 1965 75 or 85 , there are always two people who're at these parties , boys and girls and all of the drinking and sexual games that go with them , for all we know Prof. Ford is a" jilted ex-lover "with a guilty conscience about her promiscuous years .
Is Saturn really made of cheese?
I don't see mounting evidence. I welcome evidence but I won't pretend it exists.
My gut feeling about Kavanuagh is also likely affected by what I know about Trump. But, I don't get the same punk feelings toward Gorsuch. He seems composed and more intelligent than Kavanaugh. Probably making him more dangerous.
Kavanaugh stating how much he liked beer, parties, etc. but didn't and doesn't have a drinking problem is also clearly a lie IMO. I did explain a bit about why I came to my punk conclusions earlier but this was all lost in the outrage over my having the nerve to call it like I see it.
Ultimately, everyone's opinion on this matter right now have more to do with gut and intuition than anything.- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Gut feelings , emoting politics , ideological paralysis , the politics of punkism , call it anything you wish , What is likely to happen is that Kavanaugh will be confirmed . The SCOTUS will be complete , Too many good characters are assassinated in the left's #Metoo "stake burning" challenge and that's all it is given the hypocrisy of the left .
On one hand with the history of the Clintons it was always "show us the evidence " , "Prove it " ...........we can't have it both ways people; there is either a rule of law or we are all lawless , its the same with Trump and Kavanaugh , What ? All of a sudden there is a conscience on the left ?
Please ....... No one here could likely stand an FBI background check and THEN pass 6 of them , I know that .Ed: You can thank your buddy Chuck Grassley for making it a hearing instead of a trial. The hearing carries no weight. As I said in the beginning it is and was a dog and pony show. The same goes for the FBI investigation.
I don't believe the rule of law or the presumption of innocence applies to either one of them. Trump wants this to be a cakewalk for Kavanaugh and it will be, no matter where the real truth is.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Peoplepower , And where exactly is the truth my friend ? That is the larger question , you are correct though- it is a dog and pony show . Ringling Bros. couldn't have brought on more entertainment. FBI background check # 7 ? Oswald didn't get that many after JFK .
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Gut feeling is the first and most obvious place emoting begins .
My head says , the Kavanaugh opposition is all emotion and no thought . Period . - Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Besides we're waiting for anything resembling a dress with DNA on it so we can say ,
" It depends on what the definition of is , is ."
Sorry Bill .
And yes , That's how ridiculous this charge is . - Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
I once did jury duty and in spite of all the evidence , the defendant was found not guilty on multiple assault charges by hung jury , As jury foreman I asked the one juror why she found him not guilty , and she replied "I just had a feeling he was innocent ". I asked "Well what about all the evidence ,the defendant's admission , photos , police reports , testimony ,fresh scars , etc.......?"
She replied ," I just had a gut feeling about it ", then I remember she was a divorcee of a state trooper .
I replied " I understand "
Gut Feelings. - Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
You 'll have to excuse those of us that believe in evidence and not emotion in the rule of law , In the corporate and political world we've known since about 1960 that sex between men and women and its power struggles have infested any sense of decency .
So NOW #Metoo want's the mature men and women of today to roll back our consciences to the Victorian days and "hold Kavanaugh's feet to those fires ?" Please !.........
Next thing we know the Jersey Girls or the Kardashians or maybe Lady Ga Ga will be confirming SCOTUS nominees . - Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Hard sun , In the real world and in real world trials in the court of LAW justice system and not your media Dear Abbey generated gossip trials and so the sentencing by popular opinion ; hard questions like mine would be asked and rightfully so .
It's called Due Process , look it up sometime ,
And you are college educated , right ? - Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Talk about "redacted ".
Having watched Ford's almost entire testimony , I was amazed at how much of her memory was seemingly "redacted " , can't remember people ,where the party was , where the house was , who's house it was , how she got there , how she got home ,what date it was , if she told anyone then , if , if , if , if ..........
But that didn't seem to account for her ideological supporters standing fast behind her .
Incidents of trauma alone do not dictate whether one has a complete memory of these incidents in general , Often times in fact , people have extremely detailed memories of trauma , Although a woman's emotional ploys can seem believable , I see Prof. Ford as being a sacrificial lamb to an ideological agenda . There are too many people willing to sacrifice themselves for the Trump resistance . - Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Also you guys need to go read the just released prosecutors report to the senate committee on Prof. Fords testimony and letter ! Released today saying-------- "........ Prof. Ford does not meet the preponderance of evidence for ANY charges ............."
He's not on trial, he's under consideration for Supreme Court...I thought we had got that through to you. Besides, while he may be innocent, you think this isn't what the prosecutor was hired to do?
"Mitchell, whom GOP senators selected to handle the questioning in last week’s hearing with Ford and Kavanaugh, is a registered Republican who is chief of the special victims division of the Maricopa County attorney’s office in Phoenix. Although she asked Ford all of the questions posed by Republican senators, she asked Kavanaugh only two rounds of questions until GOP senators began speaking again. "Republicans asked reasonable questions of Ford, designed to elicit truth of what happened.
Democratic questions of Kavanaugh were limited to repeatedly asking "why won't you help us subvert the will of the committee and delay proceedings until we have the political power to deny your confirmation?"
A reasonable conclusion by reasonable people might be that Democrats found Kavanaugh innocent of the charges against him. Yes?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar … gh/571915/
Jeff Flake: ‘We Can’t Have That on the Court’
The Arizona senator called Brett Kavanaugh’s interactions with lawmakers at a hearing last week “sharp and partisan.”
Ha ha...SC members should be above this no matter what they are faced with. I could of handled myself better than Kavanaugh, and that's not saying much. I think Merrick Garland should be the next SC member.Wilderness: Oh really, that's why Trump loves to counter-punch as he calls it. That's why he loves to call the legitimate press the fake news and insult their reporters without any provocation in front of the whole world.
In my estimation he is a poor role model for our young people. So therefore by your statement, he and only he is totally responsible for his poor behavior as the president of the United States of America.
He has the right to do and say anything he wants, but by the same token, he has a responsibility to respect the office of the president. He is only harming himself in front of the world when he lashes out at people who are asking legitimate questions.
https://mashable.com/article/trump-repo … XIHjmhSZqW"Oh really, that's why Trump loves to counter-punch as he calls it."
Not sure where or how you're getting this "why" from anything I said.
But I WILL say that yes, Trump and Trump alone is responsible for his comments (although he could be getting false information, but doubt that's what you're speaking of).
And I will say that his is not a good role model for young children (where Kavanaugh, from little we have seen, is) any more than idiot performers and sports figures are. This is nothing new - few of the "role models" children adore ARE good ones.
I think Trump badly needs a clamp on his mouth. I also think his actions (most of them) almost completely overrides any damage is silly tweets and such do. "Actions" being actions taken in guiding the country, such as banning travel from countries that do not vet, slowing illegal alien entry, trade agreements, etc.
Does that make you feel better?Wilderness: I don't like the idea of having a sociopathic (my opinion), chronic liar as president. Regardless of his supposedly great actions. I believe that sooner or later his lies will catch up with him; and when they do, it is not going to be good for our country.
The real problem is, in his mind, he has somehow convinced himself of thinking he is not lying. From all that I have read, that is a symptom of a sociopath.And you are welcome to your opinion. If you're going to call him a sociopath I would suggest something more than "From all that I have read, that is a symptom of a sociopath." though - an actual diagnosis from a trained psychologist following an actual examination would be nice. I understand it is only your opinion, but applying ugly labels to people without anything to back it up should thus be kept to yourself until you can supply something more than that. IMO.
Wilderness: I can back it up and I've done it before. It is just a matter of you accepting it, which I know you wont. Trump's behavior fits a large part of this profile. By the way, I feel we are just killing time now until we hear from the FBI investigation.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-con … c-20353928Great! Link, please, to a trained, qualified psychologist or psychiatrist that has done a personal interview (and preferably treatment) with the conclusion he is a sociopath. I await your "backup".
And you're right - I won't accept a conclusion from some quack looking at a faux TV persona and making a public diagnosis of a perceived medical condition.
Yes, we're spinning our wheels, waiting. Except for attempting to teach that unsupported claims are worthless and name calling is not a reasonable method of supplying evidence.
Related Discussions
- 98
Are You Afraid of Flying....To Senate Hearings
by Ralph Schwartz 5 years ago
Christine Blasey Ford is currently being questioned in a Senate Hearing and her narrative is showing some holes, especially the "fear of flying" portion. For those of you just tuning in, she had asked for the hearing to be delayed because she was afraid of flying. What's been...
- 18
Hey Boehner, how's that relentless focus coming along?
by Susan Reid 11 years ago
During the 2010 mid-terms the GOP campaigned fiercely on the platform of job creation and, as a result of such promises, the GOP gained the majority in the House of Representatives. As the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner made the welcome claim that the primary goal of the Republican Party...
- 107
Judge Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing - DAY 1
by Ralph Schwartz 5 years ago
Today is the first day of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice nominee, Brett Kavanaugh - and it's already a wild and crazy ride. At this early point in the hearing, reports are that 17 people have been removed for disrupting the proceedings, several Democrats forcibly interrupted...
- 26
The Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act
by ga anderson 20 months ago
There is a lot of contention regarding this bill with the expected opposing political claims. We get to pick who to believe, even starting with the name.For instance, the most money is allotted for climate change efforts. The worth of those monies is arguable, they are speculative projections and...
- 20
Do you think Hilary Clinton will become the Democratic nomination in 2016?
by Philip Cooper 9 years ago
Do you think Hilary Clinton will become the Democratic nomination in 2016?
- 13
The Right, Conservatives, Republicans prefer Autocracy over Democracy?
by Credence2 2 years ago
I find this topic most disturbing as it is a reflection of the goals and aspirations of the American Right wing movement. There is no such thing as it being "fringe" as Trump, Carlson and many Republican Senators avoided direct answers or said that the Orbanz authoritarian regime in...