Brett Kavanaugh

[cwolff]

Yes, it does matter, as evidenced by the huge circus act we just went through. And if there had been literally any evidence to support any of the claims, he would not have been confirmed and may have even faced criminal charges.

Someone screamed rape, it was taken very seriously, no evidence was produced, and we all moved on with our lives. But had there been any evidence at all, you're saying that everything would've turned out exactly the same?

Give me a break.

Slow down Stumplicker. Evidence was produced. Ford testified under oath. Inconsistencies emerged from Kavanaugh's explanations along with his crazy performance for which he half-ass apologized in the WSJ. His testimony wasn't tested in any way. They still pushed it out of committee with the promise of an investigation which was micromanaged by the very guy whose job it was to get Kavanaugh through the nomination process.

Add in the moral flexibility, the elastic relationship to truth and the gross amount of lies which pour out of the WH only to be advanced by the base and it's entirely credible to believe that nothing could have changed this.

[Stumplicker]

Slow down Stumplicker. Evidence was produced. Ford testified under oath. Inconsistencies emerged from Kavanaugh's explanations along with his crazy performance for which he half-ass apologized in the WSJ. His testimony wasn't tested in any way. They still pushed it out of committee with the promise of an investigation which was micromanaged by the very guy whose job it was to get Kavanaugh through the nomination process.

Add in the moral flexibility, the elastic relationship to truth and the gross amount of lies which pour out of the WH only to be advanced by the base and it's entirely credible to believe that nothing could have changed this.

I'm not sure you understand what constitutes viable evidence. In fact, I'm very sure you don't. You haven't displayed anything but proven incorrect statements this entire time. The first time, you claimed that you weren't quoting facts but only your opinion when I lined it up next to facts that you also posted. The second, you quoted disproof of your statement while making the statement. The third time you demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about the core beliefs of our system of justice by stating that the burden of proof was to be brought by the accused rather than the accuser.

You don't get a fourth chance. You are everything the people here have said you are, and probably more, but I'm no longer interested in hearing any more from you. You're not intellectually capable of holding a conversation that requires any degree of logic or rationality.

[cwolff]

I'm not sure you understand what constitutes viable evidence. In fact, I'm very sure you don't. You haven't displayed anything but proven incorrect statements this entire time. The first time, you claimed that you weren't quoting facts but only your opinion when I lined it up next to facts that you also posted. The second, you quoted disproof of your statement while making the statement. The third time you demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about the core beliefs of our system of justice by stating that the burden of proof was to be brought by the accused rather than the accuser.

You don't get a fourth chance. You are everything the people here have said you are, and probably more, but I'm no longer interested in hearing any more from you. You're not intellectually capable of holding a conversation that requires any degree of logic or rationality.

You've gone from "literay any evidence" to "viable evidence" within two posts so you've conceded that there is evidence to support Ford. I get that in your opinion, the evidence does not meet your standards of proof. I understand that's your position but it's illogical for you to say there is no evidence.

[Methais]

You've gone from "literay any evidence" to "viable evidence" within two posts so you've conceded that there is evidence to support Ford. I get that in your opinion, the evidence does not meet your standards of proof. I understand that's your position but it's illogical for you to say there is no evidence.

Kavanaugh’s testimony is just as much “evidence” as Ford’s was. Feel free to explain why this isn’t the case.

Only difference is Ford’s “witnesses” couldn’t back up anything and dems tried to get her friend to change her story.

But yeah, totally credible in Soy World.

You are the absolute stupidest motherfucker in PC history. I don’t think you can fully grasp what this means, as we’ve had some whoppers on here years before you ever showed up sharting soy everywhere.

And you’re dumber than all of them. Possibly even al of them combined. You’re like the Obama debt of stupidity for the PC.

[Tgo01]

Ford testified under oath.

So did Kavanaugh and he denied the whole thing.

Perhaps we should go by Ford's own witnesses to say what happened.

Wait! They all said she's lying.

Hmm...

I guess we just ignore that fact and ignore the fact that Kavanaugh denied the allegations under oath and pretend Ford's testimony is the only one that matters.

[Parkbandit]

Slow down Stumplicker. Evidence was produced. Ford testified under oath.