now you're back to straight up making shit up. apart from some unoriginal 'inb4s' and feigning ignorance after studying my post twice and realising you can't refute it, you completely DODGED the electoral college issue, so claiming i'm 'wrong' about it is nothing short of ridiculous.
also, you're free to mock me for pointing them out, but that does not make your ad hominems or strawmen disappear, that's not how that works. i think you're just wrong about your definition of the term 'wrong' - that would actually explain your confusion and you pathetic attempts to deflect.



ok, so this 'wrong' was just an uncalled for, 'general' observation, got it. a bit lazy and doesn't really even pass the smell test, but whatever...

please point out the part in my post that offends you on her behalf, thank you.

I agree. I don't like this. His former roommate says it's "believable" that Kavanaugh tormented women? What the fuck is that?

Second, I think it's unlikely for all of these networks and people to coordinate a campaign against Kavanaugh. I think it's more likely that a lot of left-leaning people simply don't want him to become the next SCOTUS Justice. I could see how it gives the appearance of coordination.

Last, I think it's baffling that the GOP didn't launch an investigation into the original claim already or that Kavanaugh didn't press for one. It clearly picked up enough steam to merit one. The second accusation's timeline didn't carry nearly as much weight. I've read estimates that an investigation would take 3-4 days, tops. Could have already happened.

McConnell was right when he said Kavanaugh would make for a tough confirmation...though not for reasons he predicted. He was worried about his political ties and all the documents associated with his time in the W. White House. Those concerns, along with the questionable perjury, seem to be a distant memory now.

its really baffling how identity politics has become this political black hole that sucks everything in, isnt it? what should have been a vetting of Kavanaughs judicial track record and his judicial stances has turned into yet another iteration of the #metoo debates.

Identity politics indeed. This is a loud shitshow of right wing pro-rape social values being forced down the throats of Americans like they force their gross conservative dicks into unwilling women.

But aside from Roche’s claim that Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker, one of his high school friends, Mark Judge, wrote a memoir — “Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk” — in which he “referenced a passed-out ‘Bart O’Kavanaugh,’ who drank too much and once threw up in a car,” as the Washington Post puts it. Kavanaugh was also listed as the “treasurer” of the “Keg City Club” in his senior yearbook.

Kavanaugh also claimed that if he had assaulted Ramirez in college, “it would have been the talk of the campus” — his implication being that it wasn’t. But that’s not true either. As the New Yorker details, news of Kavanaugh’s alleged assault of Ramirez indeed spread around Yale, and more than three decades after it happened, the publication talked to a number of classmates who heard about it at the time and recalled the incident in a manner similar to Ramirez.


So he is a liar.

Once the women are out of the public eye they are going to be forgotten about. Tools used like a baseball bat to try and hit political enemies and then tossed aside like a dime whore. Genuinely damaging for the more productive parts of the "#metoo" movement



Thats fake. There were never any witnesses for the Ramirez affair

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Sep 25 2018 04:16pm

his judicial stances and track record (pro corporations, anti environment, anti worker protection, anti abortion, his new found enthusiasm to protect presidents - after trying his best to make every dirty little detail about bill clinton public) has been under scrutiny and has been addressed. that part was NOT replaced, it's just that it does not matter AT ALL to republicans. they would have confirmed him no matter what his record was, and there was NOTHING the dems would have been able to do.

that doesn't mean i support the way they handled the matter, but that also doesn't mean i'd not defend the position that the allegations should be investigated properly - for both sides' sake one would assume, but it looks like republicans and kavanaugh himself are not in the slightest interested in an independent investigation, they want to confirm him to the highest court of the country whether the story is true or not.

SCOTUS seating requires approval of the senate. Garland didn't have approval of the senate.