What's the point in even trying to do anything other than make fun of you people for acting so outrageously all the forgetin time? It's another outrage every other week, and you wonder why you don't have a leg to stand on when you bitch and moan about the uppity libruls.
yeah how outrageous of us to disagree with you lol
I haven't really looked into this ordeal much and even I know this is complete bullstuff dude, no wonder nobody takes you seriously.
edit: missed this part of planr's increasingly stupid post
Newsflash, dumbass: I haven't chosen to believe stuff. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not involved in the case and none if it personally affects me. If the investigation goes through and it doesn't go to court, that's as far as "Innocent" is going to go, but until then I'm not going to pretend I have some imaginary stake in this.
you know, it would be nice if for once if you could just debate the issue without stooping to personally attacking people and call them vulgar names for disagreeing with you. it seems that every time you respond to something i or others post that you do this.
The guy is auditioning to become a supreme court justice. That's a big deal. The supreme court is the highest rung of the judicial system. If someone on the court isn't impartial or has any conflicts of interest, this is dangerous for the country. This is why I think it's a fool's game to immediately jump to the guy's defense. I'd rather a lengthy, unnecessary vetting process to prove someone is capable of being a supreme court justice rather than just allowing the guy in because he's a republican.
becoming a supreme court justice is a big deal, but literally no one on the supreme court is impartial, and they all have conflicts of interest. they all have political convictions and the members on the court almost always vote on issues based on party lines.
as to the matter of his innocence in this issue, the fact that he's being nominated to the supreme court is completely irrelevant in determining his innocence. he could be someone running for a county commissioner or even a school board and it would not make a difference in discerning whether or not he's guilty. is it important we find out the truth? absolutely. could what he did (or not did) 35 years ago somehow affect his judgment today and make him unfit to serve? i don't see how at all. people change. especially after 35 years.
the fact that right before he was due to be nominated to the supreme court, this woman jumps out and accuses him of something that she apparently did not even bother reporting for
35 years and only until now, at the
exact time in which such an accusation would damage kavanaugh's reputation and government career the most, combined with the fact that her own witnesses say it didn't happen, and her own inability to even recount the actual date it occurred on, should indicate that something really fishy is going on here. this whole allegation affair reeks of conspiracy by the dems (and christine ford on her own inward desire) to keep kavanaugh from becoming a justice.
honestly though, kavanaugh's statements about loving beer and his admittance to being a drinker
does cast a bad light on his ability to be a good justice. a justice should be sober-minded at all times. even if one's not drunk at a given time, a lifetime of drinking can certainly do damage to the brain, which can include the judgment and reasoning centers. if there's anything that could impair his ability to do his job correctly, it'd be his love for alcohol, not some alleged assault incident that supposedly occurred decades ago when he was a dumb teenager. people change, especially after 35 years, but the nature of alcohol's effect on a person does not change.
Poll