Perfect example of the GOP's struggle to decide between "he didn't do it" and "who cares if he did?": this guy right here

edit:

hahahahahahahahaha

Are you claiming she's lying?

Republicans know how dumb and evil it makes them look to just come out and say "bitches be lying", so what you get instead is just endless crying from people like chyme that these accusations even exist. He doesn't give two ****s about them, but he knows he can't say that, so you just get these tears about how Dianne Feinstein Didn't Handle This The Right Way, as if there is a right way (other than shoving it all under the rug) that would make him happy.

It's always bad faith. Always.

So uh this Ed Whelan thread is amazing

trust me, you are using WAY too much logic for this thread. also trust me, in a page or 2, you WILL be called a rapist.
but i still salute your efforts, it's all we can do.

Those kittens were asking for it. I heard they were dressed like sluts. And drunk.

Just endless, endless crying and whining

Believe the accusations or not, looks like max value to me:

So he fingers an unmentioned third party as the culprit? What a cock.

Surely this is the dumbest it will ever be. Surely.

whats more likely, Garrett sues in what has to be the most slam dunk libel case ever? Or takes a massive payout from republican donors and says "ya it was me, def not Kavanaugh, my bad?"

but I'm not crying or complaining about anything. I"m laughing at the clownshow that is the Dem response to this. (and the incessant freakout on display in this forum, I should say.)

and you'll notice I've neither said nor intimated that Ford is lying. I don't think bitches always be lyin. but given the nature of the accusation, and more important, the SPECIFICS of how it allegedly went down (in ford's own words), 1. it's patently absurd to suggest that that accusation alone should disqualify a nominee ; and 2. what are the local cops gonna do? go canvas the county in question asking if anyone had a house party 35 years ago? ford has stated that she never told anyone about it until 2012. what is the investigation going to uncover?

Dunno bro, perhaps that’s why they should investigate.

And here we go. Even if it happened it shouldn't matter.

No, dip****. Attempted rapists, especially those who apparently don't think they did anything wrong, should not be a SCOTUS justice, one of the most revered and insulated position (arguably more so than POTUS) this country has to offer.

Every time we put a known dip**** like Kavanaugh in, SCOTUS loses some credibility and that will make it harder for us to keep the next overreaching POTUS (Trump? Obama?) in check.

LOL

"I'm not mad, I'm laughing, you're mad"

No **** you aren't. We already talked about why!

How many attempted rapes should each supreme court nominee be allowed?

Enough to warrant an investigation before being appointed for life? yes.
No, but this is not to determine if he is convicted of rape, just if he is the best choice to be appointed for life. Is it enough to conclude that an investigation is warranted before an appointment for life? Yes.

Funnier or less funny than not even allowing Garland to reach hearings for a full year?


As opposed to being rushed through as quickly as possible because of fears of losing political power in the midterms, yes.

Now, with a straight face, tell me how rushing a lifetime political appointment through in this instance with these details before the midterms is in line with the vision of the framers of that constitution you invited me to read. You are so FOS it is not even worth the effort pretending you give a **** about that precious document--written by men in a time before the existence of dinosaurs was even known, and certainly with no understanding of what tools a grifter like Mitch McConnell would have at his disposal to game it...and then ask anyone to take you seriously. You are transparent. You suck at this game. We all know you are fine with lying, cheating and stealing as long as you get yours. Don't ask us to pretend to buy your line of ****. You don't even buy it.

It isn't particularly important what an investigation may or may not uncover. Just that there actually is one, and if in any way possible, the criminal actor(s) be punished for that.

It isn't particularly important if the accuser purposely waited until a certain moment to "bring him down". The accuser can do whatever the **** she wants. She should also be heard, and impartially.

That your post demonstrates an interest in "wtf is the point" and "why bother" says a lot about you, curious political timing or not.

The only real point any D opposition has is the timing was purposeful. I personally do not like **** like that. But lol @ anyone acting like this is a mountain when it's a molehill agenda compared to the R's mountain of lies, deception, and schadenfreude. Get the **** out of here with your bull****, bro.

Rushing? They had hearings. They sent follow up questions. They've offered to hear Ford, either publicly or privately. They offered to go to her. How is that rushing?

GOP: "Show up on Monday and testify, just you and Kavanaugh, no other witnesses, so we can hear him say he didn't do it and then immediately vote to confirm him"

chyme:

LOL

Lol. Note to self: Disingenuous pieces of **** are disingenuous.

chyme: most non-*******s think perjury should be a disqualification for SCOTUS, or indeed any kind of judicial job.

Hope that helps clear thing up!

Here's the thing---reverse the roles. Let's say that it was...oh...I don't know...Al Franken who was about to be confirmed and the accusation came up from a right-wing talk show host. Would some on the left hand wave it away and not believe it. Absolutely. Would ANYONE on the right? Not a single person, and certainly not chowderhead.

But there would be a lot on the left, including me, who even if we found it potentially politically suspect, would not support pushing him through. I know I would be blaming the Democrats for picking a flawed nominee. But that's because I have a ****ing moral compass.

The FBI already did their background check. They do that in private.

Ford's allegations are already public. It's not the FBI's job to investigate them now.

The FBI looked in to the Anita Hill details BEFORE her allegations had been made public...also FBI jurisdiction b/c fed employees. Once the report was leaked to the public, they resumed the hearings in five days. Cuz it's the senate's job to weigh the evidence.

I get that Ford may not wish to testify , either in public or in private as Grassley has offered.

But guess what? It's out in the open now. So setting the reopening of the hearings for a week is not rushing or bullying.

I think a lot of Dems and pundits expected that Grassley would try to rush the vote thru WITHOUT letting her testify.

When he offered her multiple ways to testify, that of course had to be turned into an act of bullying

The FBI probably didn't know to look for sexual assault allegations.

Now they do. And even without an allegation multiple people have already said people already knew about the incident.