Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation Hearing Now with Poll

[Ethel mermania]

Then why is she coming forward now? Sorry to say, to bad, the time was the hearings

Its kind of odd of all the years she could have come forward it was this year. I bet someone on the left found this gal and asked her to "come forward" so they could sully Kavanaugh as a SCOTUS nominee and in reality this isn't about the SCOTUS pick it's about how many more ways can we shoot ourselves in the foot while trying to ruin trump.

Supposedly she came out in 2012 when Romney said he would nominate kauvanah if he was elected. But she documented nothing till then.

There was a time and place for this to be investigated, and that was before and during the hearings. But if it did, that would have given Trump time to nominate someone else prior to now. The democrats don't give a shit about her either, they are just using this to delay the vote till after the mid-terms.

[Ethel mermania]

Doesn't matter. The time for her to come forward was during the hearing.

Moot point now. There's been a hearing scheduled by Grassley on Monday with Ford and Kavanaugh.

Does that mean there will be a committee revote?

[Shofercia]

Bit of a difference here. There's no realistic way that the Republicans can have a net loss of more than one Senate seat.

So basically the Republicans had far less of a risk against the Democrats then than do the Democrats now.

The Republicans could've won or lost the Presidential Election in 2016. There is no Presidential Election in 2018. No election, no risk.

And Trump is going to still be president.

Which again makes the risk for Democrats now is greater should they lose then it was for Republicans should they lose.

A risky action is one where we don't know the outcome. Spoiler alert: the Democrats wont' win the Senate or the Presidency.

The people aren't deciding on the SCOTUS nominee in this election. Kavanaugh is going to be nominated and confirmed, pending FBI's check. The only question is when will he be nominated.

He is being decided for as much as Obama's nominee was being decided for, because if the Democrats win the election, guess who isn't passing the Senate.

The Democrats aren't going to win the Senate. There are nine Republicans up for reelection. None are Roy Moores. Are the Republicans going to lose in Mississippi? Texas? Nebraska? Wyoming? Utah? Because if not - you're left with Arizona, Tennessee, and Nevada - the pick up I gave you. Nevada aside, you have Arizona and Tennessee. Let's say that you somehow take those two as well. Now one must consider the 11 Trumpy states where the Democrats are defending. Let's start in North Dakota - where your candidate's being outpolled, outfunded, and outmatched. Now you can only lose one.

How about Indiana? There's a Republican leaning toss up. Missouri - candidates are in dead heat according to the polls. Montana - leans a tad Democratic. Just a tad. Florida - another dead heat. So you have to be perfect, make no mistakes, and even then it comes down to Republican leaning Indiana. Not happening.

[Shofercia]

1. I'm saying that there are good people in every party, and bad people in every party.
2. Alabama had no issues selecting another Republican as a Senator, even with the raised turnout. If Republicans didn't vote for him, it was because they were ashamed, which clearly shows that they care about the issue.
3. Not saying that Trump's super moral; I am saying that if he needed to apologize, the party clearly cares about the issues.
4. I'm all for investigating it. However, until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm presuming that he's innocent, which infers that she might be lying.

Oh, and here's some evidence: Alabama voting for Sessions:



Alabama voting for Moore:



If Moore simply carried all of Sessions' voters, he'd win.

1. Agreed, though when it comes to caring about sexual assault, the distribution of 'good people' is even across the two parties.
2. Some didn't.
3. The party does need votes from independents. I think the apology was for them.
4. I'm fine with arguing that she might be lying. My problem is that some have taken "Innocent until proven guilty" and used it to justify believing "she's lying and it's all #FakeNews".

1. Yep
2. True, but it seems that quite a few did.
3. Although both parties need independent votes, and the apology was definitely for them, I doubt that it was just for the independents.
4. Fair enough

[Jerzyland]

Moot point now. There's been a hearing scheduled by Grassley on Monday with Ford and Kavanaugh.

Does that mean there will be a committee revote?

Vote is cancelled until new hearing. That's what I heard.

[Vassenor]

Also I'm sceptical about the "he definitely wasn't there" point. So he couldn’t remember whether he spoke to anyone at Trump’s law firm and had to sound the firm name out like Encino Man learning English, but he remembers not being at a specific party at some point decades ago.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Also I'm sceptical about the "he definitely wasn't there" point. So he couldn’t remember whether he spoke to anyone at Trump’s law firm and had to sound the firm name out like Encino Man learning English, but he remembers not being at a specific party at some point decades ago.

Would he not remember not being at a specific party or something?

[Shofercia]

It's not even remotely the same. The President nominates, and the Senate confirms. Neither is realistically up for grabs this election. The President isn't being elected, and there's no realistic way that the Democrats can win the Senate majority.

So basically there is no risk to either party if they wait longer then 5 weeks. Or...the Democrats are taking a great deal of risk in the hopes that their base supports them and will turn out during the midterm...something Democrats are not known for doing. Either way, the five week limit you are imposing makes no sense.

A compromise involves some give and take. The Republicans have the votes to confirm. You're asking that the Republicans put their own party at greater risk, irrespective of what the FBI says. That's not how compromises work.

[Eglaecia]

Also I'm sceptical about the "he definitely wasn't there" point. So he couldn’t remember whether he spoke to anyone at Trump’s law firm and had to sound the firm name out like Encino Man learning English, but he remembers not being at a specific party at some point decades ago.

The lass making the claims doesn't know much about this party either so I'm inclined to side with him.

[Petrasylvania]

The gal didn't want it known. It was more of "you should know this" situation.

Then why is she coming forward now? Sorry to say, to bad, the time was the hearings

Because she got doxxed.

[Fartsniffage]

Also I'm sceptical about the "he definitely wasn't there" point. So he couldn’t remember whether he spoke to anyone at Trump’s law firm and had to sound the firm name out like Encino Man learning English, but he remembers not being at a specific party at some point decades ago.

Would he not remember not being at a specific party or something?

I know that if you gave me a list of dates from back when I was in high school I wouldn't be able to tell you if I was at a party or not on them. Especially if I wasn't at a party. Why would I remember a night of just sitting around at home years later?

[Jerzyland]

Its kind of odd of all the years she could have come forward it was this year. I bet someone on the left found this gal and asked her to "come forward" so they could sully Kavanaugh as a SCOTUS nominee and in reality this isn't about the SCOTUS pick it's about how many more ways can we shoot ourselves in the foot while trying to ruin trump.

Supposedly she came out in 2012 when Romney said he would nominate kauvanah if he was elected. But she documented nothing till then.

There was a time and place for this to be investigated, and that was before and during the hearings. But if it did, that would have given Trump time to nominate someone else prior to now. The democrats don't give a shit about her either, they are just using this to delay the vote till after the mid-terms.

GOP just didn't have hearings for Obama's nominee (Garland) for SCOTUS. It's hard to cry foul and sound like a convincing victim, Ethel, but you are giving it one helluva try!

As for the rest, if the mechanics of manufacturing sausage bothers someone, then don't tour the factory. Same goes for politics. I feel bad for Ms. Ford and also Mrs. Kavanaugh. They get the all day sausage factory tour Monday.

[Balican]

Also I'm sceptical about the "he definitely wasn't there" point. So he couldn’t remember whether he spoke to anyone at Trump’s law firm and had to sound the firm name out like Encino Man learning English, but he remembers not being at a specific party at some point decades ago.

Do you honestly think a goody-two-shoes like Kavanaugh would get invited to a party that had alcohol at it? I'm in a similar position and I've never been invited to a party, let alone one with alcohol involved.

[Shofercia]

Would he not remember not being at a specific party or something?

I know that if you gave me a list of dates from back when I was in high school I wouldn't be able to tell you if I was at a party or not on them. Especially if I wasn't at a party. Why would I remember a night of just sitting around at home years later?

It was the fateful night you joined NSG

[Eglaecia]

Then why is she coming forward now? Sorry to say, to bad, the time was the hearings

Because she got doxxed.

Yeah, after she made these allegations. That's the only reason anyone cares about her.

[Neutraligon]

So basically the Republicans had far less of a risk against the Democrats then than do the Democrats now.

The Republicans could've won or lost the Presidential Election in 2016. There is no Presidential Election in 2018. No election, no risk.

There is an election, namely the midterm. If that election has no risk as you claim then the five week limit you are putting on is useless as the guy will be confirmed whether or not the election occurs. So which is it, is there a risk or is there no risk? This holds for the rest of your comment. Hell letting the Democrats hold up until after the nomination even has some reward for the Republicans if their election is so certain...namely they can claim that the people are backing them when it comes to the Supreme Court and that they where not being hypocrites since they did wait for the election.

[Jerzyland]

Also I'm sceptical about the "he definitely wasn't there" point. So he couldn’t remember whether he spoke to anyone at Trump’s law firm and had to sound the firm name out like Encino Man learning English, but he remembers not being at a specific party at some point decades ago.

He couldn't even know whether he was or wasn't there anyway. Why? Because she was 15, didn't drive and didn't know the address. The location of the party is unknown at this point. I haven't heard anything about a specific date either, but that would help.

Odd that he can remember he wasn't there even though no one has stated where and when this party occurred. He's a damn judge and he should understand the logic of which party, where. But he denies without knowing.

[Neutraligon]

So basically there is no risk to either party if they wait longer then 5 weeks. Or...the Democrats are taking a great deal of risk in the hopes that their base supports them and will turn out during the midterm...something Democrats are not known for doing. Either way, the five week limit you are imposing makes no sense.

A compromise involves some give and take. The Republicans have the votes to confirm. You're asking that the Republicans put their own party at greater risk, irrespective of what the FBI says. That's not how compromises work.

You where the one who said there was not risk.

[Fartsniffage]

I know that if you gave me a list of dates from back when I was in high school I wouldn't be able to tell you if I was at a party or not on them. Especially if I wasn't at a party. Why would I remember a night of just sitting around at home years later?

It was the fateful night you joined NSG

I actually remember where I was the first time that happened. In one of the computer rooms in John Rylands library, Manchester University.

[Tarsonis]

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4 ... to-succeed

Nice to see some salient and cogent comments from The Hill.

[Vassenor]

Also IIRC McConnell was adamant that Franken should resign over his allegations, and now is pearl-clutching over the idea that people think Kav should do the same.

[Hakons]

The Republicans could've won or lost the Presidential Election in 2016. There is no Presidential Election in 2018. No election, no risk.

There is an election, namely the midterm. If that election has no risk as you claim then the five week limit you are putting on is useless as the guy will be confirmed whether or not the election occurs. So which is it, is there a risk or is there no risk? This holds for the rest of your comment. Hell letting the Democrats hold up until after the nomination even has some reward for the Republicans if their election is so certain...namely they can claim that the people are backing them when it comes to the Supreme Court and that they where not being hypocrites since they did wait for the election.

There's a difference between a Presidential election (choice in nomination) and congressional election (choice in 1/3 of the advice and consent). McConnell's justification was expressly for the former, so I don't know why this is continuously ignored.

[Ethel mermania]

Then why is she coming forward now? Sorry to say, to bad, the time was the hearings

Because she got doxxed.

My understanding is she came out on her own, as she started this in 2012.

[Ethel mermania]

Also IIRC McConnell was adamant that Franken should resign over his allegations, and now is pearl-clutching over the idea that people think Kav should do the same.

Franken admitted guilt. Big difference

[Galloism]

Also IIRC McConnell was adamant that Franken should resign over his allegations, and now is pearl-clutching over the idea that people think Kav should do the same.

Franken admitted guilt. Big difference

Rookie mistake.