If people find the claims/statements of left wingers less likely to be true because the left is embracing a "by any means necessary" attitude. The left will be less persuasive and that will be a problem for them.

Doesn't say how much time he "granted."


https://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley/st...44767684366336

Why should we care? You and people like you were not persuadable to begin with. You skipped right over Anita Hill and the fact that her claims were also not treated as serious by Republicans because you didn't give a **** then either.

Oh just shut up. The right doesn’t care about facts. They haven’t for years.

This is bull****. I don't believe you.

I give Anita Hill more credibility than I give Ford because back in 1991 open obstructionist didn't populate the left like they do now.

My first thought was who the hell wrote this? It's haphazard and shorthand, not old man yells at cloud like he is. Like someone's uh, not quite right child.

Wait for it


https://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley/st...48132657025025

...but not enough to do anything about confirming Clarence Thomas.

So, again, given that Republicans are not a group of people who are persuadable by sexual harassment or attempted teenage rape: why should we give a ****?

I’m guessing there might be more incentive to disrupt her life completely, relive an incident-in public on the ****ing world stage mind you—that has haunted her to the point she shared it with several therapists, and deal with the fact that subhuman scumbag pieces of **** all over the Internet will scratch their neck beards land type post after post about why she is less believable since the “tolerant left” doesn’t “tolerate” atrocities anymore, NOW that her attacker in the sexual assault and attempted rape is on the verge of being granted a lifetime appointment to the highest court. Maybe.

Or like, maybe she wants to like, obstruct! I mean the left gets mad at baby prisons, and did you know she wrote a some papers about a pill that is prescribed for birth control as a secondary use? Probably a radical.

I give Anita Hill more credibility than I give Ford because back in 1991 open obstructionist didn't populate the left like they do now.

No you don't.

I mean, maybe he does, but even if you grant his dumbass invented hypothesis that "the obstructionism of the left" (lol) moves Republicans from "won't believe accusations of sexual impropriety, ever" to "still won't believe accusations of sexual impropriety, ever, but now with special bonus finger-wagging" - again, why are any of us supposed to give a ****?

It's a super cool story bro, not sure what else we're supposed to do with this very important news Simulated is bringing us from the right.

Be sweeter to racists so they have fewer excuses to **** on sexual assault victims, I guess.

People are thinking Grassley's tweet starting "Judge Kavanaugh..." wasn't meant for us.


https://twitter.com/jpodhoretz/statu...55827342635008

In 1991 there was not a lot I could do about Clarence Thomas.

But you appear to be judging an argument about left wing credibility based on how you feel about republicans. Sklansky might be right regarding his claim that the percentage of people who know how to think is decreasing.

Since you are fixated on the evil republicans here is some food for thought: About 40% of people identify as independent. Maybe the democrats will want to persuade them someday and having credibility is helpful. Further you should not assume that every democrat walks lockstep with the radical leftie obstructionist types.

simulated,

how widespread is the conspiracy established by radicalized leftists in order to gaslight you?

which newspapers do you no longer trust are practicing journalism in good faith, as they may have 10 or 20 years ago?

Our collective need for attention and necessity to dunk on third grade morons who make a new account because they dont have the pride to post from their main isnt the best look imo.

The guy's an idiot! He's not arguing in good faith! He made an account yesterday solely *to* argue in bad faith about sexual assault on a poker forum. That's so pathetic. That was a giant part of his Friday evening/night!

According to the therapy notes four boys assaulted her and Kavanaugh was not mentioned by name. Today it is two boys who assaulted her who are mentioned by name.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/1346536002/

If she was near black out drunk too, how likely is it that her memory is compromised?

Everything I read I do so with a bit of skepticism.

An easy way to identify the people who do not argue in good faith is to look for people who levy personal attacks.


A good faith arguer instead identifies the premises and conclusion of his opponent. Then attacks either the truth of the premises or the logic from which the conclusion is derived.

Hahahahahahahaha this guy comes in here talking about credibility and **** and then cites this woman

LOL

What was the last account you posted under? If you want to operate in good faith, we can start there.