Obstructionism: the ultimate trump card?

@KingReef,

Quote King Reef:

Quote:

The opposite, I think, it true, and the Democrats are lying themselves to political death, quite possibly.

Has Trump changed his position yet on whether Cohen was his lawyer? Trump has lied about that several times. A Trump supporter complaining the people who oppose Trump are lying is hilarious-Trump doesn't know what the truth is.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Quote Blickers:

Quote:

More and more evidence is appearing that the incident actually occurred....

Quote Brandon9K:

Quote:

I dare you to tell me one piece of evidence.

OK.

Accuser's schoolmate says she recalls hearing of alleged Kavanaugh incident
Cristina King Miranda says she recalls the alleged assault being discussed at their school, but does not know if it occurred.
by Ken Dilanian, Brandy Zadrozny and Ben Popken / Sep.19.2018 / 2:19 PM EDT / Updated Sep.20.2018 / 10:05 AM EDT

WASHINGTON — A former schoolmate of Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser wrote a Facebook post saying she recalls hearing about the alleged assault involving Kavanaugh, though she says she has no first-hand information to corroborate the accuser’s claims.

"Christine Blasey Ford was a year or so behind me," wrote the woman, Cristina King Miranda, who now works as a performing arts curator in Mexico City. "I did not know her personally but I remember her. This incident did happen."

She added, "Many of us heard a buzz about it indirectly with few specific details. However Christine's vivid recollection should be more than enough for us to truly, deeply know that the accusation is true." Source

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Wait! I read that post several times. Can you understand why it looks like nothing but vague gossip, to me?

Quote:

Accuser's schoolmate says she recalls hearing of alleged Kavanaugh incident
Cristina King Miranda says she recalls the alleged assault being discussed at their school, but does not know if it occurred.
by Ken Dilanian, Brandy Zadrozny and Ben Popken / Sep.19.2018 / 2:19 PM EDT / Updated Sep.20.2018 / 10:05 AM EDT.

She remembers it being discussed, but does not know if it occurred?

Quote:

Many of us heard a buzz about it indirectly with few specific details

Many of us heard a buzz; indirectly?

Really, doesn't that sound like gossip?

1 Reply

@Blickers,

I was attacked sexually, especially when I was a kid. Once as an adult. So I know how it works, I also know how the Democrats have been working. They lie. They get people to lie, and the Democrats, in this case, got a woman, Ford, who wasn't clear about anything that Kavanaugh did.

But we don't have long to wait. I'm confident that this whole diabolical scheme by the Democrats is going to pan out. Kavanaugh is innocent, and the Democrats know that Ford is confused, the other women are at least just as confused, maybe one or two are outright lying, and the Democrats love that stuff. They are Leftists who hate this country and the Constitution.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Quote Blickers:

Quote:
Do you agree that if it appears likely that Kavanaugh actually did this, he should not be on the Supreme Court?

Quote livinglava:

Quote:
I'm too offended about the dems/pro-choice abusing politics to suppress the participation of pro-life in democracy to answer that.

Okay, so we got your answer. You want Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court even if he did what Professor Ford said he did to her.

You ignored my earlier post where I said that dems should choose: go ahead and ruin Kavanaugh's career if you sincerely believe that's what he deserves, but then support Trump in choosing another nominee who is pro-life.

What I think is that the people trashing Kavanaugh are only doing so as part of a political strategy and if he was a dem-appointed candidate with the exact same personal history, they would ignore it because he is friendly to their causes.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

I think Democrats should insist on the McConnel rule as long as he’s majority leader. 400+ days before a hearing is held.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I think Democrats should insist on the McConnel rule as long as he’s majority leader. 400+ days before a hearing is held.

Not to confirm a supreme court justice in an election year? I thought that referred to presidential elections, but do you think it should apply to all elections? So which years should be designated as supreme court appointment years? Only odd-numbered years?

So if the dems are going to obstruct until after the elections, will they agree to appointing a Trump-chosen nominee before Trump's re-election, or are they going to try to obstruct throughout 2019 and then claim the McConnell rule again in 2020 in hopes of electing a dem president and taking over the appointment that way?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote livinglava:

Quote:

You ignored my earlier post where I said that dems should choose: go ahead and ruin Kavanaugh's career if you sincerely believe that's what he deserves, but then support Trump in choosing another nominee who is pro-life.

It was a very ignorable post. Regrettable as well.

I see no reason why, if Kavanaugh is judged likely to have shown a proclivity toward violent sexual behavior in his past, that the Senators who go along with the overwhelming legal opinion that Roe v Wade is settled law are obligated to see that Kavanaugh is replaced with another nominee who also goes out on a radical limb and opposes the legal consensus.

Of course, Kavanaugh's disrespect for Constitutional tradition is a very good reason why he should not be confirmed. However, there is another reason he is running into trouble, which is that he will be making decisions on the fate of half the citizens of the US-the distaff half-and it is increasingly likely he has exhibited violent behavior toward them since high school. To confirm him would work to destroy the esteem the Supreme Court presently has, and would be disastrous toward our Constitutional system.

1 Reply

@KingReef,

KingReef:

Quote:

I was attacked sexually, especially when I was a kid. Once as an adult. So I know how it works,

Maybe yes, maybe no. We're all just names on a message board here, so I have some skepticism.

Quote KingReef:

Quote:

I also know how the Democrats have been working. They lie. They get people to lie, and the Democrats, in this case, got a woman, Ford, who wasn't clear about anything that Kavanaugh did.

I see. After claiming multiple sexual violations against yourself at numerous times in your life, you now claim that you have NO problems with the Republicans refusing to let the FBI investigate the allegations of sexual violation against Kavanaugh. Apparently, you want us to believe the thought of the Democrats preventing a Trump nominee from reaching the Supreme Court is so painful to you, that it overwhelms the psychological burdens you suffer from being sexually violated at multiple times throughout your life.

What baloney.

1 Reply

@roger,

Quote roger:

Quote:

Wait! I read that post several times. Can you understand why it looks like nothing but vague gossip, to me?

She remembers it being discussed, but does not know if it occurred?

Many of us heard a buzz; indirectly?

Really, doesn't that sound like gossip?

Yes, it is vague, but there is one important thing: Kavanaugh is absolutely insistent that he never, ever, attended a party where anything like this happened, let alone took part in it. He said this several times.

If someone can testify that it was common knowledge that Kavanaugh was indeed at a party where some kind of sexual violation or incident occurred, even if they don't know how or even if Kavanaugh was involved, that would be evidence enough for the police to investigate further if Kavanaugh was present at such a party. Because it indicates Kavanaugh's story is falling apart.

By itself, Kavanaugh's presence at the party does not mean he took part in a sexual attack. But it would mean he's lying about not being there at all, which would tend to give the accuser's account far more weight than Kavanaugh's account.

At the very least, this person's account should send investigators out to find out if Kavanaugh was at the party, for Kavanaugh himself is the one who attached such importance to that assertion.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

BLickers,
You are just being a hypocrite. You saw my claim at being sexually assaulted, doubted it, then are talking Fords word for what she says. That is what I mean by dyed in the wool. You make your decisions accord to party lines, and that's it.

Don't try to deny it.

1 Reply

One of the worst things Democrats do is continually feed the victimhood of sexual assault victims. I did not listen to the Democrats. I do not consider myself either a liberal or conservative. I am not a Republican. The ideology of Democrats have long been into Identity Politics, and thereby they use people to give them a sense of entitlement over things they perceive society wronged them about. They NEVER want people to forget things like what color they are, so they can remain angry. With white men especially the Democrats want them to apologize for all history involving their race.

But I address all of you because I see what is going on, and I tend to think that the Democrats are obstructionists, they let murderers go out the back door of jails to avoid ICE, they act like criminals because the Democratic leadership IS criminal. They mean to break the system. That is why they don't want a US border, they don't want ICE, they don't want law enforcement at the border, they don't want a wall, they don't want the right to free speech except for themselves, they don't want the right to bear arms except for themselves and their body guards. They want to take power away from people to defend themselves.

Just in case anyone was wondering where I was in all this. If we were never acquainted, as I am new here, Hello. Good to meet you.

0 Replies

@KingReef,

Just because I believe Ford, who went to a girls school where the girls mixed frequently with the boys from Kavanaugh's boys school, is under oath, under her own name and has corroborating evidence doesn't mean I have to believe an anti-Democratic troll under a false name who has made irresponsible posts.

Why would a poster such as yourself, claiming to have been sexually assaulted repeatedly in their life, both as a child and as an adult, not want an FBI investigation to see whether a nominee for the Supreme Court is indeed a sexual assaulter? I cannot believe that you would be okay with the thought of that happening.

You've already given your answer. You would rather have one of those type of people who assaulted and humiliated you get promoted to the Supreme Court rather than give the Democrats the satisfaction of blocking his nomination because you don't like Democrats because they are blah blah blah. All of which is so much hogwash.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Let’s apply it to every senate confirmable position that comes up as long as McConnel is majority leader. Why not?

1 Reply

@Blickers,

I wanted to show that someone who was sexually assaulted, even a couple of times when I thought I was going to die (I was a kid), doesn't have to play the victim, or feed people who want to use you for political gain. We don't have to sit in our stink and never get over it. The Democrats are feeding a monster, and I know they are using that woman the same way they used the kids in the Parkland shooting. They instigate a way of thinking, and get those kids to promote their anti-Constitutional sentiment. All the while standing on the graves of those who died.

The Democrats turn tragedy into their own political gain. Or so they think.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Let’s apply it to every senate confirmable position that comes up as long as McConnel is majority leader. Why not?

No, if you like the rule, you have to ratify it so it applies uniformly regardless of the partisan composition of government when a particular nominee is to be appointed.

1 Reply

@KingReef,

Quote KingReef:

Quote:

I wanted to show that someone who was sexually assaulted, even a couple of times when I thought I was going to die (I was a kid), doesn't have to play the victim, or feed people who want to use you for political gain. We don't have to sit in our stink and never get over it. The Democrats are feeding a monster, and I know they are using that woman

What crap. It's been proven that people who get sexually assaulted very often hold it secret for years, they don't just "shake it off".

Many people who commit sexual assault get off for that reason. Your post puts the blame for problems the victim has from the incident on the victims themelves, holding yourself up as a person who got over it, so they can too. I don't know you, I don't know your history, but you are posting things that virtually everybody who deals with the problem agrees is nonsense. And surprise!-these statements just happen to support the Republicans' desire to go hard on a person claiming sexual assault, which supports the Republican interest.

Sorry, no.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Quote KingReef:

Quote:
I wanted to show that someone who was sexually assaulted, even a couple of times when I thought I was going to die (I was a kid), doesn't have to play the victim, or feed people who want to use you for political gain. We don't have to sit in our stink and never get over it. The Democrats are feeding a monster, and I know they are using that woman

What crap. It's been proven that people who get sexually assaulted very often hold it secret for years, they don't just "shake it off".

Many people who commit sexual assault get off for that reason. Your post puts the blame for problems the victim has from the incident on the victims themelves, holding yourself up as a person who got over it, so they can too. I don't know you, I don't know your history, but you are posting things that virtually everybody who deals with the problem agrees is nonsense. And surprise!-these statements just happen to support the Republicans' desire to go hard on a person claiming sexual assault, which supports the Republican interest.

Sorry, no.

Have you ever heard of 'crocodile tears?' Even small children know how to use fake tears and victimhood to their advantage. Adults take it a step further and use it to gain financial and political advantages. Don't you think that when someone claims to be a victim in a way that has political and/or financial effects, people should question whether they are crying 'crocodile tears' to achieve a certain goal or outcome?

Would you want the use of victimhood as political/financial power to go completely unchecked?

1 Reply

In his opening statement Kavanaugh not only proclaimed his innocence, he sounded like he was making arguments for his own sainthood.

When pressed to answer whether he would call for an FBI investigation into the matter, he grew very flustered, almost breaking down into tears, before being rescued by Grassley, but never answered the question at all.

Nobody yet has asked Kavanaugh whether he would submit to a polygraph.

3 Replies

@coluber2001,

coluber2001 wrote:

In his opening statement Kavanaugh not only proclaimed his innocence, he sounded like he was making arguments for his own sainthood.

When pressed to answer whether he would call for an FBI investigation into the matter, he grew very flustered, almost breaking down into tears, before being rescued by Grassley, but never answered the question at all.

Nobody yet has asked Kavanaugh whether he would submit to a polygraph.

You sound a little confused by making these two statements.

0 Replies

Obstructionism: the ultimate trump card?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know