Kavanaugh hearing

[Brian Peacock]

What do you think we should properly call Trump supporters?

Trumparians?

[Tero]

None of it happened because:Kavanaugh FBI.jpg

LOL - the hardworking, dedicated, non-partisan FBI is now shilling for Trump?

You're lack of faith in our "intelligence agencies" is treasonous.

trump crooked.jpg

Tero 2016 to 2018 - when the FBI investigates Trump, they're honest, upright and nonpartisan...

Tero 2016 to 2018 - when FBI investigates Hillary it's all made up about "her damn emails" and when they investigate Kavanaugh they're shills for Trump.

That was pitiful. It was not worth typing. I'm not hiring you as speech writer.

[Forty Two]

It's accurate, though.

[Cunt]

To me, it looks like anyone in the US who doesn't celebrate - loudly - their democratic party alliance, is seen as a 'Trumpanzee'.

Of course, no-one here would be that biased, but the normal citizens look that way from here.

I'm a lifelong independent, but nobody's called me a "Trumpanzee." I googled it, and it looks like it's a thing though.

Must be a partisan malady.

Trump supporters would be called republicans or Trump supporters.

If you listen carefully, many people use other words to describe half their community.

[Forty Two]

As soon as he started a session by accusing Democrats of ruining his life he disqualified himself on partiality grounds, in my view. The alignment of rhetoric with the GOP doesn't help his claim to neutrality either.

Well, when the Democrat plan was to derail his nomination, come hell or high water, the truth was the truth - https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson ... s-n2522458

While it seems there is now no reasonable grounds or legitimately basis on which to object to or oppose a Supreme Court nominee (how very dare they!), none of that really touches on the point that Mr Kavanaugh was/is partisan and clearly aligned with the GOP - well, other than to justify it of course.

There are plenty of reasonable grounds and legitimate bases on which to object to or oppose SCOTUS nominees. That doesn't mean that the tactics used with respect to the character assassination of Kavanaugh were legitimate. They were calling the guy "evil" incarnate before these allegations came out.

If the Democrats were objecting based on partisanship, then they might have a point. However, that doesn't work to defeat a majority in the Senate. It used to, but the Democrats, when they had control of the Senate, got rid of the filibuster of SCOTUS nominees.

Kavanaugh would certainly not be my choice for a SCOTUS nominee, but my main concern is the notion that these kind of allegations can derail a candidacy. Imagine that kind of trump (no pun intend) card in the hands of a GOP minority trying to block a Democratic President's nominee.... we have to stop everything and have a full blown investigation because of 36 year old internally inconsistent, unverifiable allegations dropped like a bomb after hearings on the candidate were concluded....

[Joe]

Harry Reid got rid of the filibuster for lower court nominees. Mitch McConnell nuked it for the Gorsuch nomination.

Call it a bipartisan effort.

[Brian Peacock]

As soon as he started a session by accusing Democrats of ruining his life he disqualified himself on partiality grounds, in my view. The alignment of rhetoric with the GOP doesn't help his claim to neutrality either.

Well, when the Democrat plan was to derail his nomination, come hell or high water, the truth was the truth - https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson ... s-n2522458

While it seems there is now no reasonable grounds or legitimately basis on which to object to or oppose a Supreme Court nominee (how very dare they!), none of that really touches on the point that Mr Kavanaugh was/is partisan and clearly aligned with the GOP - well, other than to justify it of course.

There are plenty of reasonable grounds and legitimate bases on which to object to or oppose SCOTUS nominees. That doesn't mean that the tactics used with respect to the character assassination of Kavanaugh were legitimate. They were calling the guy "evil" incarnate before these allegations came out.

If the Democrats were objecting based on partisanship, then they might have a point. However, that doesn't work to defeat a majority in the Senate. It used to, but the Democrats, when they had control of the Senate, got rid of the filibuster of SCOTUS nominees.

Kavanaugh would certainly not be my choice for a SCOTUS nominee, but my main concern is the notion that these kind of allegations can derail a candidacy. Imagine that kind of trump (no pun intend) card in the hands of a GOP minority trying to block a Democratic President's nominee.... we have to stop everything and have a full blown investigation because of 36 year old internally inconsistent, unverifiable allegations dropped like a bomb after hearings on the candidate were concluded....

Who called Kavanaugh evil incarnate? Trump certainly called journalists evil for reporting on the allegations didn't he? Nonetheless, that still does not touch on the point that Mr Kavanaugh was/is partisan and clearly aligned with the GOP - well, other than to justify it some more that is.

[Forty Two]

Cory Booker did.

[Joe]

Cory Booker did.

Got a source?

I'd be interested in seeing what context a politician would say something like that.

[laklak]

Booker is a joke, literally. Departacus.

[Forty Two]

Cory Booker did.

Got a source?

I'd be interested in seeing what context a politician would say something like that.

[Seabass]

So he actually didn't call Kavanaugh evil incarnate, you dumbass

[Seabass]

Forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term is pretty fucking barbaric. I think "evil" is a fair word for that, provided you don't mean it in a supernatural sense.

[Jason]

Evil? What? Have you been drinking the kool-aid?

There's nothing evil about preventing the murder of a human being.

[Seabass]

Murder? What?