@Jacanuk said:
Never ignore a reply you made, did not see you made a reply and would not ignore a sensible debate.
And I accept and take any criticism of Trump to heart when it´s based on sensible data. Which is not a common thing, most of what is brought forward on these boards and on social media is nothing but pure hatred or based on nonsense. Also, I never claimed I am a bastion of objectivity, but compared to some of your posts and 100% of others on this board, I am definitely not as partisan.
As to the relative painless nomination of Gorsuch, there is a key difference here, He was not replacing Kennedy but Scalia and would not as the left has put it "destroy America for women for decades because he is clearly unable to deal with the law" and is pure evil as a senator said. The stakes are much much higher for the left. As to the FBI investigation, well I already said before Flake came out with his condition that I would be for an investigation, so don´t put this on Trump saying it much later. I welcome an FBI investigation when there is a clear deadline, this will ensure that the Democrats can´t stall this until 2021.
Also, do you have kids? do you have two kids at the same age as Kavanaugh? Because his reacting is actually far less than I would have done if my family had received death threats and also that my kids would forever be known as the "rapists daughters" just look at LJS´s and Zaryia's post, he is already convicted and judged to be guilty. His life is destroyed, he will never teach again at any university in America, he will never coach anyone and he will be seen as the judge who got away with rape. No matter where he goes.
So you may not like how his demeanour was but considering what he, if he is falsely accused, has lost. I am surprised at how calm he was.
Don't know how you could've missed my post, but alright I'll take your word for it. But c'mon, even you are capable of seeing that what you see as sensible data due to your hatred of Democrats and the Left, others don't due to their hatred of Trump, Republicans, and the Right. Different sides of the same coin, and of equal merit.
With every single one of my posts pointing out my doubts about Kavanaugh's behavior being suitable for the bench, someone attempts to segue me back into a debate about whether he's guilty. I have made it clear more than once that his guilt or innocence is irrelevant to me as it is unproven, and so this whole thread is all partisan bickering. I'm operating on what I see....."sensible" data. That being, his testimony in helping me ascertain whether I think Kavanaugh's reaction, which while completely understandable from an individual's, father's, and husband's perspective, is not befitting of a man to be in the position he is in consideration for.
Do you believe that in testifying as he did, Kavanaugh lost anything more in the eyes of those who already disbelieve him by belligerently shouting the proclamations of his innocence as opposed to if he didn't? No, and I don't think he gained any favor to those were undecided until then either. I was one, until I watched him. And what did I see? Trump. Parroting the same vindictive attitude and the same rhetoric. The only thing his testimony accomplished was to sow doubt in me not only about how he deals with his emotions when he is held to the fire, but that he is loyal to Trump and will be a partisan operative in a job demanding impartial adherence to the law. He did not paint himself in a bipartisan light. His mention of the Democrats still being bitter about the election and the mention of revenge by the Clintons both not only came off as extremely childish, they reeked of mentoring by Trump. And even if Trump didn't, those statements should be raising immediate red flags on both sides of the aisle. If you disagree, then I don't believe I'm the one who's being more partisan here.
@vl4d_l3nin: Dems are scared of the monster they have created. If they would've went along with the vote, we'd have a pretty moderate, non-textual judge who firmly believed in legal precedent, so he probably wouldn't have touched Roe v. Wade with a ten foot pole. Now that dems have drawn blood by dragging his name through the mud, he's a full on partisan hack, and dems have no one to blame but themselves.
And that's kind of the point, isn't it? If his feathers can be so ruffled by Democrats not going along with the vote, so much so that he's willing to abandon legal precedents and the like, why should he be given this job? Are you saying that Democrats must agree with him if they wish for the law to be interpreted and executed fairly, and if they don't, they deserve what they get? Even if these claims against him are false, this is an issue much, MUCH bigger than him.
@SUD123456: appreciate that, thanks.
Log in to comment