Kavanaugh hearings change minds?

wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Watched a few hours live of each of the three hearings while working out.

My impressions was Kavanaugh didn't have a lot to say. He sat bemused while Senators argued about rules, procedure and who was using negative politics (which in the age of Trump and Twitter is amusing), and was asked easily dismissed questions after long grandstanding political preludes to each question, using up major portions of allotted time. Kavanaugh followed the Ginsburg ritual of saying time after time his only loyalty is to the Constitution, that he couldn't or wouldn't answer political questions or on any issue that he might have to rule upon. (FWIW, the GOP senators also had long intros to questions, usually taking shots at their Democratic counterparts).

Have to say Harris was the only one I saw who asked relevant, get to the point, questions (without long preludes for twitter followers) that made Kavanugh actually have to say something. Not that anyone was likely listening as Booker stole the headlines by releasing e mails that already had been released, and announcing in true Furdie bombast: "I am willing to be kicked out of the Senate for breaking the chamber's rules ."

More than 60,000 documents detailing Kavanaugh's work for the Bush administration were withheld by the White House . Another batch of 40,000 were dumped on the Judiciary Committee (and the media) hours before the first hearing, giving no time for a proper vetting. Problem was the e mails Booker released were from those 40,000 already released to the media, and the point about the lateness of their release was lost in Booker's "I am Spartacus" moment. There is a point to executive privilege of documents, usually to allowing the deliberative process to be confidential. But 60K documents? Really? In any event, none of this seems to matter since Kavanaugh didn't say anything to derail his appointment (he probably even picks up some red state Dems), or for that matter, much of anything period. But man those Senators could talk and talk.

Not an impressive process IMO.



bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I didn't think he would be so embarrassingly evasive about meeting an attorney in the firm that represents tRump and discussing the Mueller investigation. He knew it would have very bad optics down the road should he not recuse himself in a case involving tRump related to that investigation so he chose to evade and cover up. Before the hearings I just thought he was a jurist that I had political differences with. Now, in addition, I think he is a dishonest person who will not recuse himself and will have his patron's back if the need ever arises.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
*** is with Cory Booker? This is the best rehearsed sound bite he could come up with? He's trying to act the edgy rebel but instead he's some sanctimonious Stanfurd nerd fallling on his sword for Senate rule CFR 28-113 blah...blah- because this is what America needs a heroic paper pusher who defies procedures so emails can be released. How long before Trump labels him forever as "Little Sparty." Stick a fork in him.

Kamala Harris on the other hand would make a good assasin. It was the only time Kavanaugh dropped his Judge presence and looked like a guy who was furtively searching his memory to see if he erased all the porn downloads. More of her.


wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

I didn't think he would be so embarrassingly evasive about meeting an attorney in the firm that represents tRump and discussing the Mueller investigation. He knew it would have very bad optics down the road should he not recuse himself in a case involving tRump related to that investigation so he chose to evade and cover up. Before the hearings I just thought he was a jurist that I had political differences with. Now, in addition, I think he is a dishonest person who will not recuse himself and will have his patron's back if the need ever arises.
It is a life time appointment. He can give the Trump the finger much the way all those Justices Nixon put on the court did to Nixon with the Watergate subpoena. He probably owes more to Kennedy who likely worked out a deal with Trump to retire now in order for his prize pupil to get his seat. (Yes I am that cynical).
mikecohen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

*** is with Cory Booker? This is the best rehearsed sound bite he could come up with? He's trying to act the edgy rebel but instead he's some sanctimonious Stanfurd nerd fallling on his sword for Senate rule CFR 28-113 blah...blah- because this is what America needs a heroic paper pusher who defies procedures so emails can be released. How long before Trump labels him forever as "Little Sparty." Stick a fork in him.

Kamala Harris on the other hand would make a good assasin. It was the only time Kavanaugh dropped his Judge presence and looked like a guy who was furtively searching his memory to see if he erased all the porn downloads. More of her.



Seeing how well prepared and determined she was, and how much she still missed, made me realize how truly difficult it is to do good cross-examination.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
mikecohen said:

Anarchistbear said:

*** is with Cory Booker? This is the best rehearsed sound bite he could come up with? He's trying to act the edgy rebel but instead he's some sanctimonious Stanfurd nerd fallling on his sword for Senate rule CFR 28-113 blah...blah- because this is what America needs a heroic paper pusher who defies procedures so emails can be released. How long before Trump labels him forever as "Little Sparty." Stick a fork in him.

Kamala Harris on the other hand would make a good assasin. It was the only time Kavanaugh dropped his Judge presence and looked like a guy who was furtively searching his memory to see if he erased all the porn downloads. More of her.



Seeing how well prepared and determined she was, and how much she still missed, made me realize how truly difficult it is to do good cross-examination.
Doing a cross against a superstar lawyer like Cavanaugh on his area of expertise (Con Law) can't be easy, especially when you have to dumb it down so everyone knows what your talking about. Thought she did the most credible job of anyone I saw - by far. She may not be as good a politician as Cory Booker (or at least at grabbing headlines), but she seemed like a damn good lawyer.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

bearister said:

I didn't think he would be so embarrassingly evasive about meeting an attorney in the firm that represents tRump and discussing the Mueller investigation. He knew it would have very bad optics down the road should he not recuse himself in a case involving tRump related to that investigation so he chose to evade and cover up. Before the hearings I just thought he was a jurist that I had political differences with. Now, in addition, I think he is a dishonest person who will not recuse himself and will have his patron's back if the need ever arises.
It is a life time appointment. He can give the Trump the finger much the way all those Justices Nixon put on the court.....


Do you want to know how cynical I am? You don't give the orange tub of guts the finger when a former Spetsnaz commando dispatched by Putin makes a visit to your home in the middle of the night and suggests it might be a good idea to "do the right thing" in your ruling in a tRump matter because it would be a shame if your wife and kids ended up at the bottom of a reservoir minus their hands and feet. Although I have to admit, I thought something like that might happen to one or more jurors in the Paulie Walnuts case but apparently it didn't.

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wish someone had put him on the spot about the ethics and legality about his appointment process. I would have liked his answer directly if he supports the hiding of documents and the rush to an appointment. If he is a man of law and principle, wouldn't he step forward and demanded himself that the documents be released and that the confirmation be thorough and apolitical? He could have done a lot to assure all American if he had made a statement like that.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blungld said:

... If he is a man of law and principle, wouldn't he step forward....


He is a weasel.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/08/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-trump-constutional-crisis?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
These are actual questions Kavanaugh drafted while working for Ken Starr on the Clinton impeachment . It's a pity these weren't read back to him under the guise of "judicial temperament." One thing it does prove- the cleaners in the Oval Office were underpaid!

"If Monica Lewinksy says you inserted a cigar into her vagina while you were in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?
5. If Monica Lewinksy says that you had phone sex with her on approximately 15 occasions, would she be lying?
6. If Monica Lewinksy says that on several occasions in the Oval Office area, you used your fingers to stimulate her vagina and bring her to orgasm, would she be lying?
7. If Monica Lewinksy says that she gave you oral sex on nine occasions in the Oval Office area, would she by lying?
8. If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated into her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?
9. If Monica Lewinksy says that on several occasions you had her give oral sex, made her stop, and then ejaculated into the sink in the bathroom off the Oval Office, would she be lying?
10. If Monica Lewinsky says that you masturbated into a trashcan in your secretary's office, would she be lying?"
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I bet he got a case of the vapors while penning that cross examination and then he had to go to confession to seek absolution for his impure thoughts that were impure in their impurity and impureness.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wonder about the "girls basketball coach"
prospeCt
How long do you want to ignore this user?

The Perjury Doughboy, . . . where's Bork - or bust

https://freebeacon.com/blog/media-trump-and-kennedy-colluded-with-russia-to-pick-kavanaugh/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kavanaugh-hearing-today-zina-bash-appears-to-make-white-power-sign-confirmation-hearing-husband-defends-her/


http://onecitizenspeaking.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451d3b569e2022ad3580bff200c-pi

Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Given the perjury was political, he's unfit. Highest court in the land should not be staffed with liars.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

wifeisafurd said:

bearister said:

I didn't think he would be so embarrassingly evasive about meeting an attorney in the firm that represents tRump and discussing the Mueller investigation. He knew it would have very bad optics down the road should he not recuse himself in a case involving tRump related to that investigation so he chose to evade and cover up. Before the hearings I just thought he was a jurist that I had political differences with. Now, in addition, I think he is a dishonest person who will not recuse himself and will have his patron's back if the need ever arises.
It is a life time appointment. He can give the Trump the finger much the way all those Justices Nixon put on the court.....


Do you want to know how cynical I am? You don't give the orange tub of guts the finger when a former Spetsnaz commando dispatched by Putin makes a visit to your home in the middle of the night and suggests it might be a good idea to "do the right thing" in your ruling in a tRump matter because it would be a shame if your wife and kids ended up at the bottom of a reservoir minus their hands and feet. Although I have to admit, I thought something like that might happen to one or more jurors in the Paulie Walnuts case but apparently it didn't.


That is the bad old days. They don't threaten any more. More like: Your honor, how about we make it so that soccer team wins?
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

These are actual questions Kavanaugh drafted while working for Ken Starr on the Clinton impeachment . It's a pity these weren't read back to him under the guise of "judicial temperament." One thing it does prove- the cleaners in the Oval Office were underpaid!

"If Monica Lewinksy says you inserted a cigar into her vagina while you were in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?
5. If Monica Lewinksy says that you had phone sex with her on approximately 15 occasions, would she be lying?
6. If Monica Lewinksy says that on several occasions in the Oval Office area, you used your fingers to stimulate her vagina and bring her to orgasm, would she be lying?
7. If Monica Lewinksy says that she gave you oral sex on nine occasions in the Oval Office area, would she by lying?
8. If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated into her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?
9. If Monica Lewinksy says that on several occasions you had her give oral sex, made her stop, and then ejaculated into the sink in the bathroom off the Oval Office, would she be lying?
10. If Monica Lewinsky says that you masturbated into a trashcan in your secretary's office, would she be lying?"
There were countless questions asked about impeachment and special prosecutors, and not one Democratic Senator mentioned Kavanaugh's work with Starr. You are a really smart guy so ask yourself why? Whose conduct do they want to highlight and whose do they want to avoid? The White House was only too happy to include that stuff. Moreover, I don't think a special prosecutor's work product is subject to executive privilege when the President is the subject of the investigation. Here is some discussion of what is theoretically protected. Background on Executive Privilege @brennancenter https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/background-executive-privilege#.W5YEJN0MFSw.twitter
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

bearister said:

I didn't think he would be so embarrassingly evasive about meeting an attorney in the firm that represents tRump and discussing the Mueller investigation. He knew it would have very bad optics down the road should he not recuse himself in a case involving tRump related to that investigation so he chose to evade and cover up. Before the hearings I just thought he was a jurist that I had political differences with. Now, in addition, I think he is a dishonest person who will not recuse himself and will have his patron's back if the need ever arises.
It is a life time appointment. He can give the Trump the finger much the way all those Justices Nixon put on the court did to Nixon with the Watergate subpoena. He probably owes more to Kennedy who likely worked out a deal with Trump to retire now in order for his prize pupil to get his seat. (Yes I am that cynical).
So, you are saying, wife, that you'd like trump booted from office and you are now ready to vote accordingly?
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

These are actual questions Kavanaugh drafted while working for Ken Starr on the Clinton impeachment . It's a pity these weren't read back to him under the guise of "judicial temperament." One thing it does prove- the cleaners in the Oval Office were underpaid!

"If Monica Lewinksy says you inserted a cigar into her vagina while you were in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?
5. If Monica Lewinksy says that you had phone sex with her on approximately 15 occasions, would she be lying?
6. If Monica Lewinksy says that on several occasions in the Oval Office area, you used your fingers to stimulate her vagina and bring her to orgasm, would she be lying?
7. If Monica Lewinksy says that she gave you oral sex on nine occasions in the Oval Office area, would she by lying?
8. If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated into her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?
9. If Monica Lewinksy says that on several occasions you had her give oral sex, made her stop, and then ejaculated into the sink in the bathroom off the Oval Office, would she be lying?
10. If Monica Lewinsky says that you masturbated into a trashcan in your secretary's office, would she be lying?"

Reaction 1: a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do!
Reaction 2: this gives me hope. If Kavanaugh is such the schoolmarm then maybe he will b*tch slap the obviously far worse Drumpf.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

wifeisafurd said:

bearister said:

I didn't think he would be so embarrassingly evasive about meeting an attorney in the firm that represents tRump and discussing the Mueller investigation. He knew it would have very bad optics down the road should he not recuse himself in a case involving tRump related to that investigation so he chose to evade and cover up. Before the hearings I just thought he was a jurist that I had political differences with. Now, in addition, I think he is a dishonest person who will not recuse himself and will have his patron's back if the need ever arises.
It is a life time appointment. He can give the Trump the finger much the way all those Justices Nixon put on the court.....


Do you want to know how cynical I am? You don't give the orange tub of guts the finger when a former Spetsnaz commando dispatched by Putin makes a visit to your home in the middle of the night and suggests it might be a good idea to "do the right thing" in your ruling in a tRump matter because it would be a shame if your wife and kids ended up at the bottom of a reservoir minus their hands and feet. Although I have to admit, I thought something like that might happen to one or more jurors in the Paulie Walnuts case but apparently it didn't.


no, but apparently it did to the sentencing judge for papadopolous.
2 weeks? Please.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

wifeisafurd said:

bearister said:

I didn't think he would be so embarrassingly evasive about meeting an attorney in the firm that represents tRump and discussing the Mueller investigation. He knew it would have very bad optics down the road should he not recuse himself in a case involving tRump related to that investigation so he chose to evade and cover up. Before the hearings I just thought he was a jurist that I had political differences with. Now, in addition, I think he is a dishonest person who will not recuse himself and will have his patron's back if the need ever arises.
It is a life time appointment. He can give the Trump the finger much the way all those Justices Nixon put on the court did to Nixon with the Watergate subpoena. He probably owes more to Kennedy who likely worked out a deal with Trump to retire now in order for his prize pupil to get his seat. (Yes I am that cynical).
So, you are saying, wife, that you'd like trump booted from office and you are now ready to vote accordingly?
I think Trump's is an unmitigated disaster in foreign affairs, and his ego (narcism?) gets in the way of a functioning White House. The sooner he resigns the better. Given the Democrat propensity to demand a bloated government, high taxes and regulation, and to want to play mommy to everything I say and think, I probably don't have anyone to vote for. The amusing thing about the post on the Kavanaugh questions, is Bill Clinton is someone I would vote for. Conservative on economic issues and liberal (if not libertarian) on social issues. But I don't really think either party will produce a Presidential candidate I want to vote for these days.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Then you and I are similar, mix of conservative with money and liberal socially.

I went to a family wedding in SC over Labor Day and met up with my older step bro in law from rural PA. He's a former bond trader on Wall Street, now a minister/reverend. He and I have talked politics and trump for the past two years. I asked him to set aside the policies, economics, or any of that and just admit that the man is a liar, an attacker with terrible diplomacy and not at all the type of person we should have in the White House. He got furious and walked away on me. Barry says that his retirement acct is up 40% and nothing else matters. It amazes me that alone, but also that he seems to have amnesia about his acct from 2007/8 and then onward to 2016. What are you, Barry, a f**ing idiot? It amazes me that even INTELLIGENT people will go along with what Trump says (the 2006 economy was in shambles, worst ever, but now it's the best ever in Us history - and note how he's already setting up the argument for when he's gone, we are going to fall apart without him, he knows the cycle is gonna end and he wants to tie it to his absence), which leads me to advise ANYONE AND EVERYONE to watch the film currently on Netflix, "Experimenter". Seriously! Conformity to authority. Big insights for me here!

And this past weekend I had a HS friend visit me. Pat now lives in SLC and is an uneducated Mormon with the BEST heart of any friend I've ever had. I asked him what he thought about Trump. He said, "oh, I love him!"
He then carried on about building a big wall, how he hates Obama, how he uniformly votes republican without any further consideration. Wow.

I realized even these people I love are part of the deplorables. It's simply nonsensical to me.

So, Wife, if you could go back to Nov 2016 and had a vote for
Hillary
Trump
Jill Stein
Who do you vote for, knowing that your vote will be THE deciding vote?

My cousin in TX posted on Facebook "winning" along with an article about jobs gains. I retorted that this extended economic expansion is simply the result of excess deficit spending (GDP = C+I+G+net exports.) G has been running too high for 10 years now and the deficit is now 21.5T. I've seen the dot com bubble and the CDO (housing) bubble pop. I don't want to see the US Dollar pop, too.

"Oh, that'll never happen", they'll say.
Until it does.

The rise and fall of great nations.
Trump could care less. He just wants his temporary moment of glory. Well, he's got it.
Short lived, I say!
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

...no, but apparently it did to the sentencing judge for papadopolous.
2 weeks? Please.


But the Papmeister had to squeal on the orange tub of guts to get that wrist slap.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Then you and I are similar, mix of conservative with money and liberal socially.

I went to a family wedding in SC over Labor Day and met up with my older step bro in law from rural PA. He's a former bond trader on Wall Street, now a minister/reverend. He and I have talked politics and trump for the past two years. I asked him to set aside the policies, economics, or any of that and just admit that the man is a liar, an attacker with terrible diplomacy and not at all the type of person we should have in the White House. He got furious and walked away on me. Barry says that his retirement acct is up 40% and nothing else matters. It amazes me that alone, but also that he seems to have amnesia about his acct from 2007/8 and then onward to 2016. What are you, Barry, a f**ing idiot? It amazes me that even INTELLIGENT people will go along with what Trump says (the 2006 economy was in shambles, worst ever, but now it's the best ever in Us history - and note how he's already setting up the argument for when he's gone, we are going to fall apart without him, he knows the cycle is gonna end and he wants to tie it to his absence), which leads me to advise ANYONE AND EVERYONE to watch the film currently on Netflix, "Experimenter". Seriously! Conformity to authority. Big insights for me here!

And this past weekend I had a HS friend visit me. Pat now lives in SLC and is an uneducated Mormon with the BEST heart of any friend I've ever had. I asked him what he thought about Trump. He said, "oh, I love him!"
He then carried on about building a big wall, how he hates Obama, how he uniformly votes republican without any further consideration. Wow.

I realized even these people I love are part of the deplorables. It's simply nonsensical to me.

So, Wife, if you could go back to Nov 2016 and had a vote for
Hillary
Trump
Jill Stein
Who do you vote for, knowing that your vote will be THE deciding vote?

My cousin in TX posted on Facebook "winning" along with an article about jobs gains. I retorted that this extended economic expansion is simply the result of excess deficit spending (GDP = C+I+G+net exports.) G has been running too high for 10 years now and the deficit is now 21.5T. I've seen the dot com bubble and the CDO (housing) bubble pop. I don't want to see the US Dollar pop, too.

"Oh, that'll never happen", they'll say.
Until it does.

The rise and fall of great nations.
Trump could care less. He just wants his temporary moment of glory. Well, he's got it.
Short lived, I say!
I'm greedy, I want prosperity, but I also want a real President. And I can only say that it is unlike we get a business-oriented President who is socially liberal. The political parties now just appeal to their bases, so it is just not going to happen for us. IN retrospect, none of the candidates met that criteria.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

She may not be as good a politician as Cory Booker (or at least at grabbing headlines), but she seemed like a damn good lawyer.

My sense is that Harris might be better than you think at politics. She just hasn't been around on the national scene as long as Booker. She was a local Bay Area/California politician until 2016 and had largely remained so. Booker was trying to grab national headlines ever since he was a mayor.

As for Booker's grandstanding, I don't think it will have a material effect on the Kavanaugh hearings, but Booker is something of a bellwether on these things. He's always trying to position himself as best he can against the political center (or at least his party's political center), so if he now thinks his best bet is to come off as a lefty firebrand, that means he sees the Democrats moving that way in the near future. He was not always like this.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump and Kavanaugh are the same. They support the same things only Kavanaugh is much worse- he will wreak destruction unchecked for 30 years unless we are lucky and he dies quickly- while Trump is likely a four year window.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kavanaugh's perjury and political plays under Bush make him as unqualified as Thomas, the pubic hair sexual harasser...the justice who NEVER speaks in open SCOTUS hearings/arguments. One can only hope Kavanugh kicks the bucket early.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Okay, so, I'll ask again to get you on record. Your choices are:
Hillary
Trump
Stein
None.

If you vote for Hillary, she wins.
If you choice any of the other 3 Trump wins.

And let me remind you, it's not a given that the market declines with a Hillary win.
Maybe it doesn't Up up 40%, but we probably don't suddenly blow up the national debt, either.

Choose!
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

wifeisafurd said:

She may not be as good a politician as Cory Booker (or at least at grabbing headlines), but she seemed like a damn good lawyer.

My sense is that Harris might be better than you think at politics. She just hasn't been around on the national scene as long as Booker. She was a local Bay Area/California politician until 2016 and had largely remained so. Booker was trying to grab national headlines ever since he was a mayor.

As for Booker's grandstanding, I don't think it will have a material effect on the Kavanaugh hearings, but Booker is something of a bellwether on these things. He's always trying to position himself as best he can against the political center (or at least his party's political center), so if he now thinks his best bet is to come off as a lefty firebrand, that means he sees the Democrats moving that way in the near future. He was not always like this.
Booker seems to have invented how to get your name out there. Harris may be a good campaigner - time will tell.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Okay, so, I'll ask again to get you on record. Your choices are:
Hillary
Trump
Stein
None.

If you vote for Hillary, she wins.
If you choice any of the other 3 Trump wins.

And let me remind you, it's not a given that the market declines with a Hillary win.
Maybe it doesn't Up up 40%, but we probably don't suddenly blow up the national debt, either.

Choose!
none, obviously the best candidate.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Any guesses what's in the letter Diane Feinstein sent to the FBI in regards to Kavanaugh?

The confirmation vote has been delayed until Sept 20.

Also...Senator Collins in Maine is taking some heat for whining about the campaign to pressure her, i.e., a $1mil fund to oppose her in 2020 if she confirms Kavanaugh. The irony of course is it's free speech, just like the Koch bros funding Kavanaugh's confirmation...and corporations are people too. But Collins is calling it extortion. I think she votes yes, but then she's done. The local press has decided to chase her around a bit...while they've usually be very friendly to her.

On that note, this is a good read:
Is the Country Really 'Divided' - or is It Just Republicans Against Everyone Else?

Looking at the poll info, that seems to be the case. There's a hardline 30% who back all things Trump and GOP. The rest of the country polls the other way...Dems and Indy voters.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Seems the letter DiFi sent to the FBI is about sexual harassment, while Brett was in high school. Another Catholic school boy sexual harasser.

Local angle, the sender is somehow related/involved with Stanfurd.



Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

These are actual questions Kavanaugh drafted while working for Ken Starr on the Clinton impeachment . It's a pity these weren't read back to him under the guise of "judicial temperament." One thing it does prove- the cleaners in the Oval Office were underpaid!

"If a Stanfurd girl says you inserted a cigar into her vagina while you were in confession would she be lying?
5. If a Stanfurd girl says that you had phone sex with her on approximately 15 occasions, would she be lying?
6. If a Stanfurd girl says that on several occasions on the Quad, you used your fingers to stimulate her vagina and bring her to orgasm, would she be lying?
7. If a Stanfurd girl says that she gave you oral sex on nine occasions in the the Town and Country shopping center would she by lying?
8. If a Stanfurd girl says that you ejaculated into her mouth on two occasions in History of Western Civilization class , would she be lying?
9. If a Stanfurd girl says that on several occasions you had her give oral sex, made her stop, and then ejaculated into the sink in the bathroom of Starbucks would she be lying?
10. If a Stanfurd girl says that you masturbated into a trashcan in your dorm, would she be lying?"


Updated
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

concordtom said:

Okay, so, I'll ask again to get you on record. Your choices are:
Hillary
Trump
Stein
None.

If you vote for Hillary, she wins.
If you choice any of the other 3 Trump wins.

And let me remind you, it's not a given that the market declines with a Hillary win.
Maybe it doesn't Up up 40%, but we probably don't suddenly blow up the national debt, either.

Choose!
none, obviously the best candidate.
There. You said it.
I blame YOU for Donald Trump.

Idiot decision!
Otherwise, I like you. But you own the label, no two ways about it.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

wifeisafurd said:

concordtom said:

Okay, so, I'll ask again to get you on record. Your choices are:
Hillary
Trump
Stein
None.

If you vote for Hillary, she wins.
If you choice any of the other 3 Trump wins.

And let me remind you, it's not a given that the market declines with a Hillary win.
Maybe it doesn't Up up 40%, but we probably don't suddenly blow up the national debt, either.

Choose!
none, obviously the best candidate.
There. You said it.
I blame YOU for Donald Trump.

Idiot decision!
Otherwise, I like you. But you own the label, no two ways about it.
Gee, if I voted for Clinton she might have won California.
Page 1 of 3
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.