Jump to content

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 17.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Yuk
Yuk

No, you guys went Republican to ethnonationalist.

Bozo_Casanova
Bozo_Casanova

When Georgetown Prep sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're

TexArcher
TexArcher

In 2016 I was a moderate.  Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, but not quite a libertarian.  I would have considered voting for Kasich had he won the nomination. Now?  I will probably never

EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, sachick said:

It's amazing that 1. you know how women feel and that 2. You know for a fact this is a bogus accusation without hearing the accuser.

 

Have you even considered there might be some truth to the story or have you ruled out any chance that it's true? Short of video evidence from 30+ years ago, is there anything that could be said by an accuser in this case that would change your mind?

Well, if she had said it 30+ years ago I might be more likely to believe it.  If she had brought it up when Kavanaugh was being considered for the five other positions he has held that required FBI background checks but were not in the media limelight and did not worry Democrat senators whether he was confirmed or not in that 30+ year time span I might be more likely to believe it.  It's weird how Republicans never get accused of sexual assault or harassment by Democrats until just before an election or some other kind of vote on them is scheduled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foosters

Foosters 17,858

Posted
Posted
Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Every time I hear some lame ass charge the democrats have made when they've done exactly the same shit, yeah.  I still sit on the right side of the aisle, I mean seriously why would I wannna to sit with a bunch of losers ?

Yeah, that's it. You're just fairly comparing both sides. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Why not? That's just good lawyering. They might have acceded to that particular demand like they did to some of the others.

Fucking 90% of the Senate has some kind of law degree or another.  They would have acceded to holding the hearing on top of the Washington Monument before they would have that demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18,903

Posted
Posted
Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Every time I hear some lame ass charge the democrats have made when they've done exactly the same shit, yeah.  I still sit on the right side of the aisle, I mean seriously why would I wannna to sit with a bunch of losers ?

You mean the side that will soon be winners again?

Rinse, repeat.

Politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18,903

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Well, if she had said it 30+ years ago I might be more likely to believe it.  If she had brought it up when Kavanaugh was being considered for the five other positions he has held that required FBI background checks but were not in the media limelight and did not worry Democrat senators whether he was confirmed or not in that 30+ year time span I might be more likely to believe it.  It's weird how Republicans never get accused of sexual assault or harassment by Democrats until just before an election or some other kind of vote on them is scheduled.

That's not weird at all. It's politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 19,121

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

If there was truth to the story the Democrats wouldn't have sat on the letter for six weeks.  They would have been bringing it up to the attention of the media for the whole month because they would have been confident the accusations were backed up with some kind of legitimate evidence.  It would have been the Democrats focus in the meetings as soon as Turtle finished banging the gavel on the first day instead of all the screaming protesters and the infomercial for the Cory Booker and Kamala Harris School of Political Grandstanding.

You want to know another reason why even the Democrat members of the Senate Judicial Committee know this is nothing more than a political smear?  Every single Democratic member of the Judicial Committee was invited to appear on Chris Wallace's show Sunday morning.  All ten of them turned down the request.  Wallace is one of, if not the most down the middle professional journalist at Fox and normally Democrats have no issues appearing on his show.  If they felt the accusation was legitimate why would every single one turn down the chance to put it out in the public again?  

Want to know how I know things?  I read super smart posts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23,475

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

LOL. Maybe she’s can testify as to how she knows he was a virgin before. How? He was really really shitty at fucking. Maybe Lindsey Graham can do the questioning on that issue.

Lindsey aint gonna give you anything informative unless it involves butt fucking,

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Facemask

Facemask 103

Posted
Posted
The virginity actually better explains the sexually frustrated deviance. 
You're a sick fuck. Surly politics board is full of absolute psychos. I have reservations about voting Republican, but will never vote for nutty lefty Democrats.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
retread

retread 2,951

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The virginity actually better explains the sexually frustrated deviance. 

That seems like an indelicate question for Senators to ask him on Thursday, but in this environment, I guess he figured that that question was coming. So why not go ahead and address it. At the same time, he's putting a new claim out there for people like old girlfriends to disprove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aqua Buddha

Aqua Buddha 14,598

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Wasn’t Hatch the one who said Anita Hill based her story off The Exorcist?  Lmao. 

I like how it's literally the same people who were in the Senate the last time this happened 28 years ago.  Party of term limits against the DC Beltway, right?

Edited by Aqua Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1,975

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Facemask said:

You're a sick fuck. Surly politics board is full of absolute psychos. I have reservations about voting Republican, but will never vote for nutty lefty Democrats.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

I bet at some point in your life you've canceled your HBO subscription after seeing a show that offended your sensibilities. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

 


You are a lawyer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No, and I don't have to be one to figure this out.  How can someone defend themselves from accusations if they have to make their defense before the accuser gives their presentation of the details of the accusations?  How can you say I was at this place, at this time, doing this before you know the exact time and place the offense you are accused of committing has been committed?  It doesn't take Perry Mason to figure that out.  Hell, it doesn't take Rick Perry to figure that out.

  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Third thread from the bottom.  Wonder what the honest answers are.

Why don't you go over there and read it?  Here's a clue about the title of the thread and the thread itself.

 

Definition of sarcasm. 1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain. 2a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual. b : the use or language of sarcasm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18,903

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

No, and I don't have to be one to figure this out.  How can someone defend themselves from accusations if they have to make their defense before the accuser gives their presentation of the details of the accusations?  How can you say I was at this place, at this time, doing this before you know the exact time and place the offense you are accused of committing has been committed?  It doesn't take Perry Mason to figure that out.  Hell, it doesn't take Rick Perry to figure that out.

Well, you can have the eyewitness who was in the room testify on your behalf. That's one way to clear your name.

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foosters

Foosters 17,858

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That's perfect. Political obliviousness is hilarious. They don't understand how badly they are losing.

Yeah, similar to that poll from last week that showed Republican voters think the "blue wave" is a total fiction created by fake news media.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...