Official Everybody Edits Forums

Yonanoke

Formerly Glaauber

From: Kumamoto, Japan

Joined: 2015-07-07

Posts: 389

Website

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

oh no, look!! she put a meme, its so mad, she want destroy all my arguments!! please stop!

▼Hidden text

boo

stop getting triggered for memes boi, you are better.

---

In-game arts

友達をまだ忘れていません。
Our memories will always belong to Everybody Edits

Onjit

Member

Joined: 2015-02-15

Posts: 9,709

Website

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

the lack of self awareness is impressive tbh

---

:.|:;

Master1

Member

From: Crait

Joined: 2015-02-15

Posts: 4,452

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

Azurepudding, have you seen the Documentary, "The Brainwashing of my dad"?  I havent seen it yet, but its on my short list of things to watch, you might find it interesting.

Edit 1: Master1, congrats, I think this is the longest I've seen a Trump supporter go without mentioning the Clinton's, or Obama.

However, the Kavanaugh hearing... That wasn't a criminal trial, that was a job interview.  I watched it live, and honestly, with the attitude he was having during it, he shouldn't have gotten the job.  I've seen people lose a potential job at McDonald's for less.

I mean you gotta be fair here. If he did commit said sexual assault, I agree that he shouldn't have gotten the position. However, if he did not, then the guy was literally sitting while his life got destroyed before his own eyes. How would you feel if everything you worked for was suddenly up for debate to be taken away from you over something you didn't do. The guy was literally in tears for most of it.

---

Yonanoke

Formerly Glaauber

From: Kumamoto, Japan

Joined: 2015-07-07

Posts: 389

Website

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

ad hominem isnt going work here btw

---

In-game arts

友達をまだ忘れていません。
Our memories will always belong to Everybody Edits

azurepudding

Member

Joined: 2016-11-18

Posts: 726

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

Azurepudding, have you seen the Documentary, "The Brainwashing of my dad"?  I havent seen it yet, but its on my short list of things to watch, you might find it interesting.

Edit 1: Master1, congrats, I think this is the longest I've seen a Trump supporter go without mentioning the Clinton's, or Obama.

However, the Kavanaugh hearing... That wasn't a criminal trial, that was a job interview.  I watched it live, and honestly, with the attitude he was having during it, he shouldn't have gotten the job.  I've seen people lose a potential job at McDonald's for less.

I mean you gotta be fair here. If he did commit said sexual assault, I agree that he shouldn't have gotten the position. However, if he did not, then the guy was literally sitting while his life got destroyed before his own eyes. How would you feel if everything you worked for was suddenly up for debate to be taken away from you over something you didn't do. The guy was literally in tears for most of it.

ummm hi, okay I guess I didn't post last night apparently, anyway

He got caught lying several times as I explained in my other post, and there was the chance of having a legit investigation to clear his name.  This never happened, leaving him questionably guilty or not guilty.  Uncertainty is uncomfortable.  Mind you the guy has this job for almost the rest of his life, so it was utmost important to make sure he was the guy for the job, who can effect the lives of millions for decades to come.  "Well, maybe" isn't gonna do it for me and most of the country.  Repubs had no problem delaying Obama's pic for more than an entire YEAR just because they felt entitled to the seat.  They even changed the rules to cheat by.  A 60 vote minimum encouraged a president to select someone more in the middle, now that you only need 51, only encourages selection of someone far right or far left.  With a legit reason to delay Kavanaugh, they instead insisted to rush it.  It did not matter if he did it or not, they just wanted him in. 

It is both wrong to assume he did it without evidence, and to assume he didn't do it as well.  But him lying and refusing to answer several questions is very questionable, while his accuser answered every question and hasn't been caught in a lie.  There's also some nasty things he's written in yearbooks.  I recall something along the likes of "No means Yes, and Yes means Anal."  :thonk:

Still doesn't prove it, but it's uncomfortable as hell and definitely warrants a proper investigation.  But the repubs were not interested in the truth, they didn't even WANT the rushed and neutered investigation.  They just wanted another R, no matter what he may have done.

---

Master1

Member

From: Crait

Joined: 2015-02-15

Posts: 4,452

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

Azurepudding, have you seen the Documentary, "The Brainwashing of my dad"?  I havent seen it yet, but its on my short list of things to watch, you might find it interesting.

Edit 1: Master1, congrats, I think this is the longest I've seen a Trump supporter go without mentioning the Clinton's, or Obama.

However, the Kavanaugh hearing... That wasn't a criminal trial, that was a job interview.  I watched it live, and honestly, with the attitude he was having during it, he shouldn't have gotten the job.  I've seen people lose a potential job at McDonald's for less.

I mean you gotta be fair here. If he did commit said sexual assault, I agree that he shouldn't have gotten the position. However, if he did not, then the guy was literally sitting while his life got destroyed before his own eyes. How would you feel if everything you worked for was suddenly up for debate to be taken away from you over something you didn't do. The guy was literally in tears for most of it.

ummm hi, okay I guess I didn't post last night apparently, anyway

He got caught lying several times as I explained in my other post, and there was the chance of having a legit investigation to clear his name.  This never happened, leaving him questionably guilty or not guilty.  Uncertainty is uncomfortable.  Mind you the guy has this job for almost the rest of his life, so it was utmost important to make sure he was the guy for the job, who can effect the lives of millions for decades to come.  "Well, maybe" isn't gonna do it for me and most of the country.  Repubs had no problem delaying Obama's pic for more than an entire YEAR just because they felt entitled to the seat.  They even changed the rules to cheat by.  A 60 vote minimum encouraged a president to select someone more in the middle, now that you only need 51, only encourages selection of someone far right or far left.  With a legit reason to delay Kavanaugh, they instead insisted to rush it.  It did not matter if he did it or not, they just wanted him in. 

It is both wrong to assume he did it without evidence, and to assume he didn't do it as well.  But him lying and refusing to answer several questions is very questionable, while his accuser answered every question and hasn't been caught in a lie.  There's also some nasty things he's written in yearbooks.  I recall something along the likes of "No means Yes, and Yes means Anal."  :thonk:

Still doesn't prove it, but it's uncomfortable as hell and definitely warrants a proper investigation.  But the repubs were not interested in the truth, they didn't even WANT the rushed and neutered investigation.  They just wanted another R, no matter what he may have done.

So by your logic, next time we have a democrat for a president who picks a democrat judge, I'm allowed to make a sexual assault claim towards them to prevent them from getting the position. As long as that's the only lie I tell, I'm good to go?

Sorry man, no, that's not how that works. If you make the claim, you provide the evidence to back it up. Otherwise your claim is meaningless.

---

azurepudding

Member

Joined: 2016-11-18

Posts: 726

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

Azurepudding, have you seen the Documentary, "The Brainwashing of my dad"?  I havent seen it yet, but its on my short list of things to watch, you might find it interesting.

Edit 1: Master1, congrats, I think this is the longest I've seen a Trump supporter go without mentioning the Clinton's, or Obama.

However, the Kavanaugh hearing... That wasn't a criminal trial, that was a job interview.  I watched it live, and honestly, with the attitude he was having during it, he shouldn't have gotten the job.  I've seen people lose a potential job at McDonald's for less.

I mean you gotta be fair here. If he did commit said sexual assault, I agree that he shouldn't have gotten the position. However, if he did not, then the guy was literally sitting while his life got destroyed before his own eyes. How would you feel if everything you worked for was suddenly up for debate to be taken away from you over something you didn't do. The guy was literally in tears for most of it.

ummm hi, okay I guess I didn't post last night apparently, anyway

He got caught lying several times as I explained in my other post, and there was the chance of having a legit investigation to clear his name.  This never happened, leaving him questionably guilty or not guilty.  Uncertainty is uncomfortable.  Mind you the guy has this job for almost the rest of his life, so it was utmost important to make sure he was the guy for the job, who can effect the lives of millions for decades to come.  "Well, maybe" isn't gonna do it for me and most of the country.  Repubs had no problem delaying Obama's pic for more than an entire YEAR just because they felt entitled to the seat.  They even changed the rules to cheat by.  A 60 vote minimum encouraged a president to select someone more in the middle, now that you only need 51, only encourages selection of someone far right or far left.  With a legit reason to delay Kavanaugh, they instead insisted to rush it.  It did not matter if he did it or not, they just wanted him in. 

It is both wrong to assume he did it without evidence, and to assume he didn't do it as well.  But him lying and refusing to answer several questions is very questionable, while his accuser answered every question and hasn't been caught in a lie.  There's also some nasty things he's written in yearbooks.  I recall something along the likes of "No means Yes, and Yes means Anal."  :thonk:

Still doesn't prove it, but it's uncomfortable as hell and definitely warrants a proper investigation.  But the repubs were not interested in the truth, they didn't even WANT the rushed and neutered investigation.  They just wanted another R, no matter what he may have done.

So by your logic, next time we have a democrat for a president who picks a democrat judge, I'm allowed to make a sexual assault claim towards them to prevent them from getting the position. As long as that's the only lie I tell, I'm good to go?

Sorry man, no, that's not how that works. If you make the claim, you provide the evidence to back it up. Otherwise your claim is meaningless.

it's like you don't read most of my post, or even the whole thing as the last one was skipped.  Feel free to read it as I'm not gonna repeat all my points over.  Maybe that's why dems are seen as "NPCs" with "scripted" language- the right don't listen and when you try to bring something conveniently ignored, you're then outed as "scripting"... christ.

If you had actually read my post, you would see that I acknowledged that we do not know if it happened or not.

I said it was a very serious accusation that deserved a serious investigation.  How can you be opposed to that?

---

Koto

Member

Joined: 2015-02-18

Posts: 3,269

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

Kavanaugh had an attitude with the people whom were questioning him at the hearing.  Remember, this is not a criminal trial, there are is no 'Jury'.  That means this is more akin to a job interview.  I don't know about you, but if I werd in a job interview, and I was asked about something that popped up in my background check, reguardless if it were true or not, if I were to get an attitude at that interview, I wouldn't expect to get the job.

Reguardless of whether or not he did it (subject of another post), he shouldn't get a job because of the way he acted.  Judges shouldn't throw temper tantrums, let alone a Supreme Court Judge.  We should have higher standards.

---

________________________________________________________

Schlog

Member

Joined: 2015-07-21

Posts: 1,957

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

Azurepudding, have you seen the Documentary, "The Brainwashing of my dad"?  I havent seen it yet, but its on my short list of things to watch, you might find it interesting.

Edit 1: Master1, congrats, I think this is the longest I've seen a Trump supporter go without mentioning the Clinton's, or Obama.

However, the Kavanaugh hearing... That wasn't a criminal trial, that was a job interview.  I watched it live, and honestly, with the attitude he was having during it, he shouldn't have gotten the job.  I've seen people lose a potential job at McDonald's for less.

I mean you gotta be fair here. If he did commit said sexual assault, I agree that he shouldn't have gotten the position. However, if he did not, then the guy was literally sitting while his life got destroyed before his own eyes. How would you feel if everything you worked for was suddenly up for debate to be taken away from you over something you didn't do. The guy was literally in tears for most of it.

ummm hi, okay I guess I didn't post last night apparently, anyway

He got caught lying several times as I explained in my other post, and there was the chance of having a legit investigation to clear his name.  This never happened, leaving him questionably guilty or not guilty.  Uncertainty is uncomfortable.  Mind you the guy has this job for almost the rest of his life, so it was utmost important to make sure he was the guy for the job, who can effect the lives of millions for decades to come.  "Well, maybe" isn't gonna do it for me and most of the country.  Repubs had no problem delaying Obama's pic for more than an entire YEAR just because they felt entitled to the seat.  They even changed the rules to cheat by.  A 60 vote minimum encouraged a president to select someone more in the middle, now that you only need 51, only encourages selection of someone far right or far left.  With a legit reason to delay Kavanaugh, they instead insisted to rush it.  It did not matter if he did it or not, they just wanted him in. 

It is both wrong to assume he did it without evidence, and to assume he didn't do it as well.  But him lying and refusing to answer several questions is very questionable, while his accuser answered every question and hasn't been caught in a lie.  There's also some nasty things he's written in yearbooks.  I recall something along the likes of "No means Yes, and Yes means Anal."  :thonk:

Still doesn't prove it, but it's uncomfortable as hell and definitely warrants a proper investigation.  But the repubs were not interested in the truth, they didn't even WANT the rushed and neutered investigation.  They just wanted another R, no matter what he may have done.

So by your logic, next time we have a democrat for a president who picks a democrat judge, I'm allowed to make a sexual assault claim towards them to prevent them from getting the position. As long as that's the only lie I tell, I'm good to go?

Sorry man, no, that's not how that works. If you make the claim, you provide the evidence to back it up. Otherwise your claim is meaningless.

welcome to the 21st century, where everyones guilty until proven innocent

azurepudding

Member

Joined: 2016-11-18

Posts: 726

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

Azurepudding, have you seen the Documentary, "The Brainwashing of my dad"?  I havent seen it yet, but its on my short list of things to watch, you might find it interesting.

Edit 1: Master1, congrats, I think this is the longest I've seen a Trump supporter go without mentioning the Clinton's, or Obama.

However, the Kavanaugh hearing... That wasn't a criminal trial, that was a job interview.  I watched it live, and honestly, with the attitude he was having during it, he shouldn't have gotten the job.  I've seen people lose a potential job at McDonald's for less.

I mean you gotta be fair here. If he did commit said sexual assault, I agree that he shouldn't have gotten the position. However, if he did not, then the guy was literally sitting while his life got destroyed before his own eyes. How would you feel if everything you worked for was suddenly up for debate to be taken away from you over something you didn't do. The guy was literally in tears for most of it.

ummm hi, okay I guess I didn't post last night apparently, anyway

He got caught lying several times as I explained in my other post, and there was the chance of having a legit investigation to clear his name.  This never happened, leaving him questionably guilty or not guilty.  Uncertainty is uncomfortable.  Mind you the guy has this job for almost the rest of his life, so it was utmost important to make sure he was the guy for the job, who can effect the lives of millions for decades to come.  "Well, maybe" isn't gonna do it for me and most of the country.  Repubs had no problem delaying Obama's pic for more than an entire YEAR just because they felt entitled to the seat.  They even changed the rules to cheat by.  A 60 vote minimum encouraged a president to select someone more in the middle, now that you only need 51, only encourages selection of someone far right or far left.  With a legit reason to delay Kavanaugh, they instead insisted to rush it.  It did not matter if he did it or not, they just wanted him in. 

It is both wrong to assume he did it without evidence, and to assume he didn't do it as well.  But him lying and refusing to answer several questions is very questionable, while his accuser answered every question and hasn't been caught in a lie.  There's also some nasty things he's written in yearbooks.  I recall something along the likes of "No means Yes, and Yes means Anal."  :thonk:

Still doesn't prove it, but it's uncomfortable as hell and definitely warrants a proper investigation.  But the repubs were not interested in the truth, they didn't even WANT the rushed and neutered investigation.  They just wanted another R, no matter what he may have done.

So by your logic, next time we have a democrat for a president who picks a democrat judge, I'm allowed to make a sexual assault claim towards them to prevent them from getting the position. As long as that's the only lie I tell, I'm good to go?

Sorry man, no, that's not how that works. If you make the claim, you provide the evidence to back it up. Otherwise your claim is meaningless.

welcome to the 21st century, where everyones guilty until proven innocent

Thing is, he wasn't proven not guilty.  And for the umpteenth time, we don't know if he did it or not, we want to KNOW if he did it or not through a proper investigation, but it's the republicans in congress/fox who don't care about the truth and pushed for a gimped investigation- one that they didn't even want at all.  They wanted literally no investigation, and to just allow the guy in, without knowing if he was innocent or guilty.

edit: And even if he is innocent, as Koto explained, the guy has no place being a supreme court judge given his embarrassing behavior through the questioning process.  He kept no calm, was excessively hostile and angry.  Didn't he dodge the question if he'd be open to an investigation a few times?  He didn't want an investigation.  That's kind of a shady sign- if an innocent person is truly innocent and is accused of a horrendous act, they should welcome the investigation to clear their name.  If you avoid or deny, it comes off as you wanting to hide something.  But if you're innocent, there shouldn't be anything to worry about, right?

It's not just the accusation that has people beliving he's guilty, it's the lies, unnecessary aggressiveness, and the nasty things he's written in yearbooks as well as his frat's disgusting slogan.  "No means yes, yes means anal."  When considering the accusation is attempted rape, damn right that sounds shady as hell.

---

Master1

Member

From: Crait

Joined: 2015-02-15

Posts: 4,452

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

I mean you gotta be fair here. If he did commit said sexual assault, I agree that he shouldn't have gotten the position. However, if he did not, then the guy was literally sitting while his life got destroyed before his own eyes. How would you feel if everything you worked for was suddenly up for debate to be taken away from you over something you didn't do. The guy was literally in tears for most of it.

ummm hi, okay I guess I didn't post last night apparently, anyway

He got caught lying several times as I explained in my other post, and there was the chance of having a legit investigation to clear his name.  This never happened, leaving him questionably guilty or not guilty.  Uncertainty is uncomfortable.  Mind you the guy has this job for almost the rest of his life, so it was utmost important to make sure he was the guy for the job, who can effect the lives of millions for decades to come.  "Well, maybe" isn't gonna do it for me and most of the country.  Repubs had no problem delaying Obama's pic for more than an entire YEAR just because they felt entitled to the seat.  They even changed the rules to cheat by.  A 60 vote minimum encouraged a president to select someone more in the middle, now that you only need 51, only encourages selection of someone far right or far left.  With a legit reason to delay Kavanaugh, they instead insisted to rush it.  It did not matter if he did it or not, they just wanted him in. 

It is both wrong to assume he did it without evidence, and to assume he didn't do it as well.  But him lying and refusing to answer several questions is very questionable, while his accuser answered every question and hasn't been caught in a lie.  There's also some nasty things he's written in yearbooks.  I recall something along the likes of "No means Yes, and Yes means Anal."  :thonk:

Still doesn't prove it, but it's uncomfortable as hell and definitely warrants a proper investigation.  But the repubs were not interested in the truth, they didn't even WANT the rushed and neutered investigation.  They just wanted another R, no matter what he may have done.

So by your logic, next time we have a democrat for a president who picks a democrat judge, I'm allowed to make a sexual assault claim towards them to prevent them from getting the position. As long as that's the only lie I tell, I'm good to go?

Sorry man, no, that's not how that works. If you make the claim, you provide the evidence to back it up. Otherwise your claim is meaningless.

welcome to the 21st century, where everyones guilty until proven innocent

Thing is, he wasn't proven not guilty.  And for the umpteenth time, we don't know if he did it or not, we want to KNOW if he did it or not through a proper investigation, but it's the republicans in congress/fox who don't care about the truth and pushed for a gimped investigation- one that they didn't even want at all.  They wanted literally no investigation, and to just allow the guy in, without knowing if he was innocent or guilty.

edit: And even if he is innocent, as Koto explained, the guy has no place being a supreme court judge given his embarrassing behavior through the questioning process.  He kept no calm, was excessively hostile and angry.  Didn't he dodge the question if he'd be open to an investigation a few times?  He didn't want an investigation.  That's kind of a shady sign- if an innocent person is truly innocent and is accused of a horrendous act, they should welcome the investigation to clear their name.  If you avoid or deny, it comes off as you wanting to hide something.  But if you're innocent, there shouldn't be anything to worry about, right?

It's not just the accusation that has people beliving he's guilty, it's the lies, unnecessary aggressiveness, and the nasty things he's written in yearbooks as well as his frat's disgusting slogan.  "No means yes, yes means anal."  When considering the accusation is attempted rape, damn right that sounds shady as hell.

A yearbook, are you serious right now? That's part of your argument? Of all the things that could help as proof, the guys yearbook. Ridiculous.

They did an investigation, they found nothing. The dems asked for more investigations because they wanted to stall the process.

@koto, in a normal job interview, you wouldn't have half the country screaming at you. Normally the employer would bring something up, and it would be between the two of you to talk. In this case, there's an audience that is constantly attacking him during the whole process, even going as far as to make death threats towards him and his family.  Any man that's going to sit there and take that doesn't deserve the spot, shows a lot of weakness imo. I would pick the one who has a strong back and stands up for himself and his own family any day. I personally don't care if he got aggressive or not. The aggression started elsewhere first.

---

azurepudding

Member

Joined: 2016-11-18

Posts: 726

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

ummm hi, okay I guess I didn't post last night apparently, anyway

He got caught lying several times as I explained in my other post, and there was the chance of having a legit investigation to clear his name.  This never happened, leaving him questionably guilty or not guilty.  Uncertainty is uncomfortable.  Mind you the guy has this job for almost the rest of his life, so it was utmost important to make sure he was the guy for the job, who can effect the lives of millions for decades to come.  "Well, maybe" isn't gonna do it for me and most of the country.  Repubs had no problem delaying Obama's pic for more than an entire YEAR just because they felt entitled to the seat.  They even changed the rules to cheat by.  A 60 vote minimum encouraged a president to select someone more in the middle, now that you only need 51, only encourages selection of someone far right or far left.  With a legit reason to delay Kavanaugh, they instead insisted to rush it.  It did not matter if he did it or not, they just wanted him in. 

It is both wrong to assume he did it without evidence, and to assume he didn't do it as well.  But him lying and refusing to answer several questions is very questionable, while his accuser answered every question and hasn't been caught in a lie.  There's also some nasty things he's written in yearbooks.  I recall something along the likes of "No means Yes, and Yes means Anal."  :thonk:

Still doesn't prove it, but it's uncomfortable as hell and definitely warrants a proper investigation.  But the repubs were not interested in the truth, they didn't even WANT the rushed and neutered investigation.  They just wanted another R, no matter what he may have done.

So by your logic, next time we have a democrat for a president who picks a democrat judge, I'm allowed to make a sexual assault claim towards them to prevent them from getting the position. As long as that's the only lie I tell, I'm good to go?

Sorry man, no, that's not how that works. If you make the claim, you provide the evidence to back it up. Otherwise your claim is meaningless.

welcome to the 21st century, where everyones guilty until proven innocent

Thing is, he wasn't proven not guilty.  And for the umpteenth time, we don't know if he did it or not, we want to KNOW if he did it or not through a proper investigation, but it's the republicans in congress/fox who don't care about the truth and pushed for a gimped investigation- one that they didn't even want at all.  They wanted literally no investigation, and to just allow the guy in, without knowing if he was innocent or guilty.

edit: And even if he is innocent, as Koto explained, the guy has no place being a supreme court judge given his embarrassing behavior through the questioning process.  He kept no calm, was excessively hostile and angry.  Didn't he dodge the question if he'd be open to an investigation a few times?  He didn't want an investigation.  That's kind of a shady sign- if an innocent person is truly innocent and is accused of a horrendous act, they should welcome the investigation to clear their name.  If you avoid or deny, it comes off as you wanting to hide something.  But if you're innocent, there shouldn't be anything to worry about, right?

It's not just the accusation that has people beliving he's guilty, it's the lies, unnecessary aggressiveness, and the nasty things he's written in yearbooks as well as his frat's disgusting slogan.  "No means yes, yes means anal."  When considering the accusation is attempted rape, damn right that sounds shady as hell.

A yearbook, are you serious right now? That's part of your argument? Of all the things that could help as proof, the guys yearbook. Ridiculous.

They did an investigation, they found nothing. The dems asked for more investigations because they wanted to stall the process.

@koto, in a normal job interview, you wouldn't have half the country screaming at you. Normally the employer would bring something up, and it would be between the two of you to talk. In this case, there's an audience that is constantly attacking him during the whole process, even going as far as to make death threats towards him and his family.  Any man that's going to sit there and take that doesn't deserve the spot, shows a lot of weakness imo. I would pick the one who has a strong back and stands up for himself and his own family any day. I personally don't care if he got aggressive or not. The aggression started elsewhere first.

You really are not reading my posts, are you?  There was an investigation- I already addressed that.  But I also addressed that it was a very limited, rushed investigation, where they were limited on what questions they could ask, and who they could ask, including close friends and those at the party.  It was not a proper investigation.

I also already addressed the things in his yearbook do not for-sure make him guilty, but it's enough to bring some suspicion.

Please

Read

I'm done responding if you won't bother to read.  And not just read, but actually listen to my entire post, because you keep responding to my posts as if I had left some words out.  Stop strawmanning, man.  Read or don't bother arguing.

---

Master1

Member

From: Crait

Joined: 2015-02-15

Posts: 4,452

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

I've been reading. Having a different view than you do does not mean that I do not read. You said that the investigation wasn't enough, I say it was. This is difference of opinion, not me refusing to read. Just because I don't respond to every single detail of your post does not mean that I didn't read the whole thing.

I

thought

you

wanted

me

to

not

do

that

Use your brain or don't bother arguing.

---

azurepudding

Member

Joined: 2016-11-18

Posts: 726

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

I've been reading. Having a different view than you do does not mean that I do not read. You said that the investigation wasn't enough, I say it was. This is difference of opinion, not me refusing to read. Just because I don't respond to every single detail of your post does not mean that I didn't read the whole thing.

I

thought

you

wanted

me

to

not

do

that

Use your brain or don't bother arguing.

And yet you just passed over why it wasn't a proper investigation, as well as an entire post from the other day.  Maybe you did read it, but by read I mean to also actively listen and pay attention.  There is a difference between hearing and listening.

You simply can't counter, and are now descending to ad hominems, I'm sorry, did I trigger you?  I think everywhere else you're a decent guy, but when it comes to politics there's just this lack of critical thinking, seeing how you jam and bend things, going against truth, facts, and reality, into Trump/Kavanaugh's favor, as well as a continuous lack of countering points, responding to things I never said, and picking and choosing what to reply to.  I think this argument is over, as my points have been ignored or not countered, so I suppose that's it.

---

Master1

Member

From: Crait

Joined: 2015-02-15

Posts: 4,452

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

I've been reading. Having a different view than you do does not mean that I do not read. You said that the investigation wasn't enough, I say it was. This is difference of opinion, not me refusing to read. Just because I don't respond to every single detail of your post does not mean that I didn't read the whole thing.

I

thought

you

wanted

me

to

not

do

that

Use your brain or don't bother arguing.

And yet you just passed over why it wasn't a proper investigation, as well as an entire post from the other day.  Maybe you did read it, but by read I mean to also actively listen and pay attention.  There is a difference between hearing and listening.

You simply can't counter, and are now descending to ad hominems, I'm sorry, did I trigger you? I think this argument is over, as my points have been ignored or not countered, so I suppose that's it.

No. I read your reasons as to why it wasn't a proper investigation, and yes I listened and understood them as well. I simply disagree. I think it was handled well. They interviewed 9 people, found nothing, and moved on. That's the end of it. had they found anything worthwhile, or had the accuser had any proof of her own, I would certainly back up a larger investigation. The fact that nobody could provide any evidence that Kavanaugh commited sexual assualt makes the whole ordeal look like a giant hoax on the democrats side in order to delay progress.

I also like this line:

leaving him questionably guilty or not guilty.  Uncertainty is uncomfortable.

You are heavily implying that you don't agree with him being chosen simply because he could be guilty. Not that he is guilty. This is an extremely dangerous way of thinking and the exact reason why I brought up my sexual assault example, which you so casually threw aside as me "not paying attention." If all it takes is one person to make a claim, causing someone to be questionably guilty or not guilty of a crime, and then that leads to them being denied a job position while also receiving death threats to themselves and their family; then clearly we have major issues with our country that need to be sorted out.

Innocent until proven guilty. Period.

Now what else would you like me to counter?

---

azurepudding

Member

Joined: 2016-11-18

Posts: 726

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

I've been reading. Having a different view than you do does not mean that I do not read. You said that the investigation wasn't enough, I say it was. This is difference of opinion, not me refusing to read. Just because I don't respond to every single detail of your post does not mean that I didn't read the whole thing.

I

thought

you

wanted

me

to

not

do

that

Use your brain or don't bother arguing.

And yet you just passed over why it wasn't a proper investigation, as well as an entire post from the other day.  Maybe you did read it, but by read I mean to also actively listen and pay attention.  There is a difference between hearing and listening.

You simply can't counter, and are now descending to ad hominems, I'm sorry, did I trigger you? I think this argument is over, as my points have been ignored or not countered, so I suppose that's it.

No. I read your reasons as to why it wasn't a proper investigation, and yes I listened and understood them as well. I simply disagree. I think it was handled well. They interviewed 9 people, found nothing, and moved on. That's the end of it. had they found anything worthwhile, or had the accuser had any proof of her own, I would certainly back up a larger investigation. The fact that nobody could provide any evidence that Kavanaugh commited sexual assualt makes the whole ordeal look like a giant hoax on the democrats side in order to delay progress.

I also like this line:

leaving him questionably guilty or not guilty.  Uncertainty is uncomfortable.

You are heavily implying that you don't agree with him being chosen simply because he could be guilty. Not that he is guilty. This is an extremely dangerous way of thinking and the exact reason why I brought up my sexual assault example, which you so casually threw aside as me "not paying attention." If all it takes is one person to make a claim, causing someone to be questionably guilty or not guilty of a crime, and then that leads to them being denied a job position while also receiving death threats to themselves and their family; then clearly we have major issues with our country that need to be sorted out.

Innocent until proven guilty. Period.

Now what else would you like me to counter?

First, please realize that sexual assault/rape can be a very hard thing to prove.  It's often a he-said-she-said thing.  They should have given the investigation more time- they only had a week, and weren't allowed to question certain relevant people or ask certain questions, but I've mentioned this several times by now.  More time, without these restrictions, should have happened.  The way the investigation was conducted, gave him no chance to be found guilty if he actually is.  That's not justice.

What's wrong with being uncomfortable with uncertainty?  It wasn't a proper investigation, and it's not just me who believes this.  While I would prefer someone more in the middle as a justice (which the republicans decided to change the rules to encourage far right or left choices), if there's going to be a conservative justice, he'd better check out like Gorsich.  No "stunts" were played under him, when his seat was stolen from Obama.  The repubs actually did something unfair here.  You think this accusation is a stunt, but as far as we know, we.. well, we actually don't know.  But seeing how she answered every single question, honestly too, and with Kasich lying several times, getting aggressive, and refusing to answer questions, well, why would I be inclined more to believe him?  The repubs didn't even WANT any form of investigation at all.  So now you don't think the quick 1 week investigation wasn't gimped at all?  Why not give it a few weeks?  It was because repubs wanted to get another R in before midterms.  They did not care if he had done anything or not, all that mattered was he was a conservative.  I mean, why was Obama's pick delayed for over a whole year, but Kavanaugh can't be delayed for a few weeks or a couple months?  The delay with Garland was entirely political.  The lack of delay with Kavanaugh, despite this very serious accusation, was political.  The truth did not matter, being conservative was what mattered.

You cannot seriously think a week long, highly restricted investigation is thorough enough.  With a proper investigation, if innocent, he could have cleared his name.  But that didn't happen, so now the majority of the country thinks he's guilty.  Because why would you rush or try to avoid an investigation if the guy is supposedly innocent?  Why not figure out the truth?  Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't, but what we've seen is enough to drive up a worrying amount of suspicion.  And even beside that, he showed how hot-headed he can be with his responses.  If innocent, and if level-headed, he should have sat there calmly, inviting the investigation.  Maybe feel hurt that he was accused for it, but no need to get all hostile like that.  An innocent person doesn't get threatened by finding out the truth of what actually happened, but he did.

Yes, it's innocent until proven guilty, but you cannot deny the chance of being found guilty.  When you start brushing things under the carpet and rushing things so things aren't seen, that's shady as hell.

---

Master1

Member

From: Crait

Joined: 2015-02-15

Posts: 4,452

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

I've been reading. Having a different view than you do does not mean that I do not read. You said that the investigation wasn't enough, I say it was. This is difference of opinion, not me refusing to read. Just because I don't respond to every single detail of your post does not mean that I didn't read the whole thing.

I

thought

you

wanted

me

to

not

do

that

Use your brain or don't bother arguing.

And yet you just passed over why it wasn't a proper investigation, as well as an entire post from the other day.  Maybe you did read it, but by read I mean to also actively listen and pay attention.  There is a difference between hearing and listening.

You simply can't counter, and are now descending to ad hominems, I'm sorry, did I trigger you? I think this argument is over, as my points have been ignored or not countered, so I suppose that's it.

No. I read your reasons as to why it wasn't a proper investigation, and yes I listened and understood them as well. I simply disagree. I think it was handled well. They interviewed 9 people, found nothing, and moved on. That's the end of it. had they found anything worthwhile, or had the accuser had any proof of her own, I would certainly back up a larger investigation. The fact that nobody could provide any evidence that Kavanaugh commited sexual assualt makes the whole ordeal look like a giant hoax on the democrats side in order to delay progress.

I also like this line:

leaving him questionably guilty or not guilty.  Uncertainty is uncomfortable.

You are heavily implying that you don't agree with him being chosen simply because he could be guilty. Not that he is guilty. This is an extremely dangerous way of thinking and the exact reason why I brought up my sexual assault example, which you so casually threw aside as me "not paying attention." If all it takes is one person to make a claim, causing someone to be questionably guilty or not guilty of a crime, and then that leads to them being denied a job position while also receiving death threats to themselves and their family; then clearly we have major issues with our country that need to be sorted out.

Innocent until proven guilty. Period.

Now what else would you like me to counter?

First, please realize that sexual assault/rape can be a very hard thing to prove.  It's often a he-said-she-said thing.  They should have given the investigation more time- they only had a week, and weren't allowed to question certain relevant people or ask certain questions, but I've mentioned this several times by now.  More time, without these restrictions, should have happened.  The way the investigation was conducted, gave him no chance to be found guilty if he actually is.  That's not justice.

What's wrong with being uncomfortable with uncertainty?  It wasn't a proper investigation, and it's not just me who believes this.  While I would prefer someone more in the middle as a justice (which the republicans decided to change the rules to encourage far right or left choices), if there's going to be a conservative justice, he'd better check out like Gorsich.  No "stunts" were played under him, when his seat was stolen from Obama.  The repubs actually did something unfair here.  You think this accusation is a stunt, but as far as we know, we.. well, we actually don't know.  But seeing how she answered every single question, honestly too, and with Kasich lying several times, getting aggressive, and refusing to answer questions, well, why would I be inclined more to believe him?  The repubs didn't even WANT any form of investigation at all.  So now you don't think the quick 1 week investigation wasn't gimped at all?  Why not give it a few weeks?  It was because repubs wanted to get another R in before midterms.  They did not care if he had done anything or not, all that mattered was he was a conservative.  I mean, why was Obama's pick delayed for over a whole year, but Kavanaugh can't be delayed for a few weeks or a couple months?  The delay with Garland was entirely political.  The lack of delay with Kavanaugh, despite this very serious accusation, was political.  The truth did not matter, being conservative was what mattered.

You cannot seriously think a week long, highly restricted investigation is thorough enough.  With a proper investigation, if innocent, he could have cleared his name.  But that didn't happen, so now the majority of the country thinks he's guilty.  Because why would you rush or try to avoid an investigation if the guy is supposedly innocent?  Why not figure out the truth?  Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't, but what we've seen is enough to drive up a worrying amount of suspicion.  And even beside that, he showed how hot-headed he can be with his responses.  If innocent, and if level-headed, he should have sat there calmly, inviting the investigation.  Maybe feel hurt that he was accused for it, but no need to get all hostile like that.  An innocent person doesn't get threatened by finding out the truth of what actually happened, but he did.

Yes, it's innocent until proven guilty, but you cannot deny the chance of being found guilty.  When you start brushing things under the carpet and rushing things so things aren't seen, that's shady as hell.

Please read my posts in their entirety before commenting, thank you.

They interviewed 9 people, found nothing, and moved on. That's the end of it. had they found anything worthwhile, or had the accuser had any proof of her own, I would certainly back up a larger investigation.

A small investigation is perfectly fine to start with, if they find anything that could be used as evidence, great! do a bigger investigation. They didn't find anything in the first one, so doing another one is just a waste of time.

You keep going on and on about how he was hostile, and I've pointed out time and time again; The guy was receiving nothing but hate for his un-proven "actions". People were immediately jumping to the accusers defense, and some were giving him (I've said this so many times now) DEATH THREATS. You try and not sound a little hostile when that's going on. I also like how you leave out the part where the guy is in tears, crying, as this whole process is taking place.

I also don't know why you're bringing up Obama's choices for the supreme court, as if I ever mentioned that I agreed with the republicans delaying that. It seems pretty irrelevant in this current conversation.

---

Schlog

Member

Joined: 2015-07-21

Posts: 1,957

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

I've been reading. Having a different view than you do does not mean that I do not read. You said that the investigation wasn't enough, I say it was. This is difference of opinion, not me refusing to read. Just because I don't respond to every single detail of your post does not mean that I didn't read the whole thing.

thought

wanted

to

do

Use your brain or don't bother arguing.

And yet you just passed over why it wasn't a proper investigation, as well as an entire post from the other day.  Maybe you did read it, but by read I mean to also actively listen and pay attention.  There is a difference between hearing and listening.

You simply can't counter, and are now descending to ad hominems, I'm sorry, did I trigger you? I think this argument is over, as my points have been ignored or not countered, so I suppose that's it.

No. I read your reasons as to why it wasn't a proper investigation, and yes I listened and understood them as well. I simply disagree. I think it was handled well. They interviewed 9 people, found nothing, and moved on. That's the end of it. had they found anything worthwhile, or had the accuser had any proof of her own, I would certainly back up a larger investigation. The fact that nobody could provide any evidence that Kavanaugh commited sexual assualt makes the whole ordeal look like a giant hoax on the democrats side in order to delay progress.

I also like this line:

leaving him questionably guilty or not guilty.  Uncertainty is uncomfortable.

You are heavily implying that you don't agree with him being chosen simply because he could be guilty. Not that he is guilty. This is an extremely dangerous way of thinking and the exact reason why I brought up my sexual assault example, which you so casually threw aside as me "not paying attention." If all it takes is one person to make a claim, causing someone to be questionably guilty or not guilty of a crime, and then that leads to them being denied a job position while also receiving death threats to themselves and their family; then clearly we have major issues with our country that need to be sorted out.

Innocent until proven guilty. Period.

Now what else would you like me to counter?

First, please realize that sexual assault/rape can be a very hard thing to prove.  It's often a he-said-she-said thing.  They should have given the investigation more time- they only had a week, and weren't allowed to question certain relevant people or ask certain questions, but I've mentioned this several times by now.  More time, without these restrictions, should have happened.  The way the investigation was conducted, gave him no chance to be found guilty if he actually is.  That's not justice.

What's wrong with being uncomfortable with uncertainty?  It wasn't a proper investigation, and it's not just me who believes this.  While I would prefer someone more in the middle as a justice (which the republicans decided to change the rules to encourage far right or left choices), if there's going to be a conservative justice, he'd better check out like Gorsich.  No "stunts" were played under him, when his seat was stolen from Obama.  The repubs actually did something unfair here.  You think this accusation is a stunt, but as far as we know, we.. well, we actually don't know.  But seeing how she answered every single question, honestly too, and with Kasich lying several times, getting aggressive, and refusing to answer questions, well, why would I be inclined more to believe him?  The repubs didn't even WANT any form of investigation at all.  So now you don't think the quick 1 week investigation wasn't gimped at all?  Why not give it a few weeks?  It was because repubs wanted to get another R in before midterms.  They did not care if he had done anything or not, all that mattered was he was a conservative.  I mean, why was Obama's pick delayed for over a whole year, but Kavanaugh can't be delayed for a few weeks or a couple months?  The delay with Garland was entirely political.  The lack of delay with Kavanaugh, despite this very serious accusation, was political.  The truth did not matter, being conservative was what mattered.

You cannot seriously think a week long, highly restricted investigation is thorough enough.  With a proper investigation, if innocent, he could have cleared his name.  But that didn't happen, so now the majority of the country thinks he's guilty.  Because why would you rush or try to avoid an investigation if the guy is supposedly innocent?  Why not figure out the truth?  Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't, but what we've seen is enough to drive up a worrying amount of suspicion.  And even beside that, he showed how hot-headed he can be with his responses.  If innocent, and if level-headed, he should have sat there calmly, inviting the investigation.  Maybe feel hurt that he was accused for it, but no need to get all hostile like that.  An innocent person doesn't get threatened by finding out the truth of what actually happened, but he did.

Yes, it's innocent until proven guilty, but you cannot deny the chance of being found guilty.  When you start brushing things under the carpet and rushing things so things aren't seen, that's shady as hell.

Please read my posts in their entirety before commenting, thank you.

They interviewed 9 people, found nothing, and moved on. That's the end of it. had they found anything worthwhile, or had the accuser had any proof of her own, I would certainly back up a larger investigation.

A small investigation is perfectly fine to start with, if they find anything that could be used as evidence, great! do a bigger investigation. They didn't find anything in the first one, so doing another one is just a waste of time.

You keep going on and on about how he was hostile, and I've pointed out time and time again; The guy was receiving nothing but hate for his un-proven "actions". People were immediately jumping to the accusers defense, and some were giving him (I've said this so many times now) DEATH THREATS. You try and not sound a little hostile when that's going on. I also like how you leave out the part where the guy is in tears, crying, as this whole process is taking place.

I also don't know why you're bringing up Obama's choices for the supreme court, as if I ever mentioned that I agreed with the republicans delaying that. It seems pretty irrelevant in this current conversation.

медленно массируйте ваг, затем осторожно втирайте клитор. Продолжайте придерживаться одного пальца во влагалище. продолжайте добавлять пальцы до тех пор, пока не окажется весь ваш кулак. Медленно вдвиньте руку в нее, как только вы достигнете своего плеча с головой, и принудительно вставьте другую руку, туловище и ноги. Теперь вы можете контролировать ее. когда вы чувствуете, что работа выполнена, закончите, родив себе.

Мне было всего 9 лет. Я так сильно любил Бена, у меня был весь товар и принадлежащие SJW компиляции на моем ноутбуке. Я молил Бена каждую ночь перед тем, как лечь спать, поблагодарив за традиционную правую жизнь, которую мне дали. «Хорошо, это эпос», я бы сказал, выпив из моей кружки левых слез. Мой папа слышит меня и называет меня правой правой куклой. Я знаю, что он просто завидовал моей преданности Бену. Я назвал его левшей снежинкой. Он хлопает меня, и я посылаю спать. Сейчас я плачу, и у меня болит лицо. Я лежал в постели, и действительно холодно. Тепло движется ко мне. Я чувствую, что что-то касается меня. Его Бен. Я так счастлив. Он шепчет мне на ухо: «Факты не заботятся о твоих чувствах». Он хватает меня мощными еврейскими руками и кладет меня на колени. Я развел мои задницы щеки для Бена. Он проникает в мою нору, так больно, но я делаю это, чтобы владеть SJW. Я чувствую, как моя задница рвет, когда мои глаза начинают поливать. Я толкаю его силу, я хочу порадовать своего Идола. Он кричит первую поправку, когда он наполняет мою задницу своей любовью. Мой отец входит. Бен смотрит ему прямо в глаза и говорит: «Либтард принадлежит». Бен уходит в мое окно. Хорошо, это было эпопее?

azurepudding

Member

Joined: 2016-11-18

Posts: 726

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

I've been reading. Having a different view than you do does not mean that I do not read. You said that the investigation wasn't enough, I say it was. This is difference of opinion, not me refusing to read. Just because I don't respond to every single detail of your post does not mean that I didn't read the whole thing.

thought

wanted

to

do

Use your brain or don't bother arguing.

And yet you just passed over why it wasn't a proper investigation, as well as an entire post from the other day.  Maybe you did read it, but by read I mean to also actively listen and pay attention.  There is a difference between hearing and listening.

You simply can't counter, and are now descending to ad hominems, I'm sorry, did I trigger you? I think this argument is over, as my points have been ignored or not countered, so I suppose that's it.

No. I read your reasons as to why it wasn't a proper investigation, and yes I listened and understood them as well. I simply disagree. I think it was handled well. They interviewed 9 people, found nothing, and moved on. That's the end of it. had they found anything worthwhile, or had the accuser had any proof of her own, I would certainly back up a larger investigation. The fact that nobody could provide any evidence that Kavanaugh commited sexual assualt makes the whole ordeal look like a giant hoax on the democrats side in order to delay progress.

I also like this line:

leaving him questionably guilty or not guilty.  Uncertainty is uncomfortable.

You are heavily implying that you don't agree with him being chosen simply because he could be guilty. Not that he is guilty. This is an extremely dangerous way of thinking and the exact reason why I brought up my sexual assault example, which you so casually threw aside as me "not paying attention." If all it takes is one person to make a claim, causing someone to be questionably guilty or not guilty of a crime, and then that leads to them being denied a job position while also receiving death threats to themselves and their family; then clearly we have major issues with our country that need to be sorted out.

Innocent until proven guilty. Period.

Now what else would you like me to counter?

First, please realize that sexual assault/rape can be a very hard thing to prove.  It's often a he-said-she-said thing.  They should have given the investigation more time- they only had a week, and weren't allowed to question certain relevant people or ask certain questions, but I've mentioned this several times by now.  More time, without these restrictions, should have happened.  The way the investigation was conducted, gave him no chance to be found guilty if he actually is.  That's not justice.

What's wrong with being uncomfortable with uncertainty?  It wasn't a proper investigation, and it's not just me who believes this.  While I would prefer someone more in the middle as a justice (which the republicans decided to change the rules to encourage far right or left choices), if there's going to be a conservative justice, he'd better check out like Gorsich.  No "stunts" were played under him, when his seat was stolen from Obama.  The repubs actually did something unfair here.  You think this accusation is a stunt, but as far as we know, we.. well, we actually don't know.  But seeing how she answered every single question, honestly too, and with Kasich lying several times, getting aggressive, and refusing to answer questions, well, why would I be inclined more to believe him?  The repubs didn't even WANT any form of investigation at all.  So now you don't think the quick 1 week investigation wasn't gimped at all?  Why not give it a few weeks?  It was because repubs wanted to get another R in before midterms.  They did not care if he had done anything or not, all that mattered was he was a conservative.  I mean, why was Obama's pick delayed for over a whole year, but Kavanaugh can't be delayed for a few weeks or a couple months?  The delay with Garland was entirely political.  The lack of delay with Kavanaugh, despite this very serious accusation, was political.  The truth did not matter, being conservative was what mattered.

You cannot seriously think a week long, highly restricted investigation is thorough enough.  With a proper investigation, if innocent, he could have cleared his name.  But that didn't happen, so now the majority of the country thinks he's guilty.  Because why would you rush or try to avoid an investigation if the guy is supposedly innocent?  Why not figure out the truth?  Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't, but what we've seen is enough to drive up a worrying amount of suspicion.  And even beside that, he showed how hot-headed he can be with his responses.  If innocent, and if level-headed, he should have sat there calmly, inviting the investigation.  Maybe feel hurt that he was accused for it, but no need to get all hostile like that.  An innocent person doesn't get threatened by finding out the truth of what actually happened, but he did.

Yes, it's innocent until proven guilty, but you cannot deny the chance of being found guilty.  When you start brushing things under the carpet and rushing things so things aren't seen, that's shady as hell.

Please read my posts in their entirety before commenting, thank you.

They interviewed 9 people, found nothing, and moved on. That's the end of it. had they found anything worthwhile, or had the accuser had any proof of her own, I would certainly back up a larger investigation.

A small investigation is perfectly fine to start with, if they find anything that could be used as evidence, great! do a bigger investigation. They didn't find anything in the first one, so doing another one is just a waste of time.

You keep going on and on about how he was hostile, and I've pointed out time and time again; The guy was receiving nothing but hate for his un-proven "actions". People were immediately jumping to the accusers defense, and some were giving him (I've said this so many times now) DEATH THREATS. You try and not sound a little hostile when that's going on. I also like how you leave out the part where the guy is in tears, crying, as this whole process is taking place.

I also don't know why you're bringing up Obama's choices for the supreme court, as if I ever mentioned that I agreed with the republicans delaying that. It seems pretty irrelevant in this current conversation.

Oof.. I did.. I responded to that point in the very quote your just responded to..   You're projecting onto me because I called you out on not reading- I responded to your point, if you missed it, it's you not reading it, not me. 

If you had reeeead, they were limited on who they could question and what questions could be asked.  And as you even mentioned yourself, it was a week long.  This wasn't even a criminal trial, just an interview, and there was clearly enough to raise some suspicion.

Tears.. when?  I'll go your path and say it was a stunt too, sure.

Everyone in politics gets death threats.  Some even get bombs sent to them, too.  Inciting violence tends to bring out some very violent people.

And hey, you mentioned political acts and stunts, so I listed two of them from the repubs.  Two that are objectively stunts too.  You calling this accusation a stunt is entirely subjective, as you have no clue if it happened or not.  That was the whole point of having a proper investigation, to find the truth.  But you seem to have very low standards of what counts as a "proper" investigation.  One week, rushed, and restricted, does not fall under "proper" for me, nor does it for the majority of the country.  Due to this gimped investigation, he will be considered a supreme justice with an asterisk to his name for decades to come.  Unless it does come to an actual criminal trial.  This could have been avoided with a proper investigation.

---

Master1

Member

From: Crait

Joined: 2015-02-15

Posts: 4,452

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

oof.. I did.. I responded to that point in the very quote your just responded to..   You're projecting onto me because I called you out on not reading- I responded to your point, if you missed it, it's you not reading it, not me. 

If you had reeeead, they were limited on who they could question and what questions could be asked.  And as you even mentioned yourself, it was a week long.  This wasn't even a criminal trial, just an interview, and there was clearly enough to raise some suspicion.

Tears.. when?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn3_3kpkJwE
Here are some time stamps, take your pick.
12:34
13:00
26:16
26:34
28:45
31:50

I'll go your path and say it was a stunt too, sure.

If that was a stunt, then I agree he should resign from judging... so that he can become an actor, because that would be some damn good acting if you ask me.

Everyone in politics gets death threats.  Some even get bombs sent to them, too.  Inciting violence tends to bring out some very violent people.

What a weak argument that is. "Everyone in politics gets death threats" - is that supposed to mean everyone is also supposed to take said death threats the same way? Not buying that one. Also stop with the inciting violence stuff, you still haven't been able to give any valid proof of it despite being asked several times. If you can't back up your own statements then don't bother making them.

And hey, you mentioned political acts and stunts, so I listed two of them from the repubs.  Two that are objectively stunts too.  You calling this accusation a stunt is entirely subjective, as you have no clue if it happened or not.  That was the whole point of having a proper investigation, to find the truth.  But you seem to have very low standards of what counts as a "proper" investigation.  One week, rushed, and restricted, does not fall under "proper" for me, nor does it for the majority of the country.  Due to this gimped investigation, he will be considered a supreme justice with an asterisk to his name for decades to come.  Unless it does come to an actual criminal trial.  This could have been avoided with a proper investigation.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, they interviewed enough people, absolutely NOTHING was found. If they continued, it would essentially be a witch hunt at that point. The democrats aim was not to dig to find the truth, they want to dig to find that he's guilty. You know as well as I do that it would not have stopped at another investigation if they still couldn't find any proof. They could dig and investigate all they wanted to and unless they found something to convict him with, it would never be enough.

---

Zoey2070

Moderation Team

From: Shakuras

Joined: 2015-02-15

Posts: 5,509

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

i for one was at least glad the dems got the house

---

proc's discorb stylish themes for forums/the game
꧁꧂L O V E & C O R N꧁꧂   ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ
danke bluecloud thank u raphe    [this section of my sig is dedicated to everything i've loved that's ever died]
?          

Koto

Member

Joined: 2015-02-18

Posts: 3,269

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

@koto, in a normal job interview, you wouldn't have half the country screaming at you. Normally the employer would bring something up, and it would be between the two of you to talk. In this case, there's an audience that is constantly attacking him during the whole process, even going as far as to make death threats towards him and his family.  Any man that's going to sit there and take that doesn't deserve the spot, shows a lot of weakness imo. I would pick the one who has a strong back and stands up for himself and his own family any day. I personally don't care if he got aggressive or not. The aggression started elsewhere first.

I mean, there's a difference between standing up for yourself, and...

That's just his opening statement.  Also, to be fair, Kavanaugh was only questioned for a couple hours.  Hillary Clinton was questioned for 12 straight hours over Benghazi in a similar manner, without once getting a temperment.  The funny part is that Trump supporters are still calling for an investigation after that, and several other investigations have been done on her for that.  That's extremely hypocritical.

---

________________________________________________________

poopdublio

Member

Joined: 2018-11-15

Posts: 48

Website

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

Hey just popping in to remind everyone that this is how they're spending their valuable free time.

---

It's :clap: Spam :clap: If :clap: The :clap: Mods :clap: Don't :clap: Like :clap: It

XxAtillaxX

Member

Joined: 2015-11-28

Posts: 4,202

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

Hey just popping in to remind everyone that this is how they're spending their valuable free time.

it's not valuable if you're not valued

---

*u stinky*

Master1

Member

From: Crait

Joined: 2015-02-15

Posts: 4,452

Re: US 2018 Mid-term election discussion

@koto, in a normal job interview, you wouldn't have half the country screaming at you. Normally the employer would bring something up, and it would be between the two of you to talk. In this case, there's an audience that is constantly attacking him during the whole process, even going as far as to make death threats towards him and his family.  Any man that's going to sit there and take that doesn't deserve the spot, shows a lot of weakness imo. I would pick the one who has a strong back and stands up for himself and his own family any day. I personally don't care if he got aggressive or not. The aggression started elsewhere first.

I mean, there's a difference between standing up for yourself, and...

That's just his opening statement.  Also, to be fair, Kavanaugh was only questioned for a couple hours.  Hillary Clinton was questioned for 12 straight hours over Benghazi in a similar manner, without once getting a temperment.  The funny part is that Trump supporters are still calling for an investigation after that, and several other investigations have been done on her for that.  That's extremely hypocritical.

I mean, you can't judge me for an argument I'm making based on what other republicans are doing. I haven't said once that I want Hillary Clinton to be investigated more than she already was. I can agree with you that other republicans are being hypocritical for doing that, but don't phrase it in a way that seems like you think I'm doing the same thing.

(I would reply to your video but it's showing unavailable for me.)

---