Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation Hearing Now with Poll

[Greater Germany]

Bill Maher makes a good point for Democrats and Liberals angry at how things are going.

He makes better points than he does jokes.

[Telconi]

But why?

Owning liberals, because he's wealthy enough to afford jacked package plans or a la carte internet.

Just because you get upset every time someone expresses a good political stance doesn't mean they're good people for the express purpose of upsetting you...

[Scomagia]

But why?

Owning liberals, because he's wealthy enough to afford jacked package plans or a la carte internet.

It's rude to answer for others, you know.

[Tarsonis]

https://youtu.be/FRpSJed5xsA


BTFO

[Arlenton]

My opinion of him has just increased dramatically.

But why?

Because he is against net neutrality.

[Tobleste]

No, it really wasn't. Nowhere else in the developed world, in any liberal democracy, would he have his place on the Court.

Yet again, this whole charade wouldn't happen anywhere else really, no one would politicize their judiciary like this, it's toxic.

Which this shitshow could have been avoided if it were handled discreetly.

It was never going to be handled discreetly. Even if democrats would agree not to announce that Kavanaugh had been accused of this, republicans wouldn't investigate it.

The issue isn't how public it's been; It's that democrats view sexual assault allegations as a serious problem (Franken, Conyers) while republicans don't (Kavanaugh, Trump).

[The South Falls]

But why?

Because he is against net neutrality.

I mean, why are you against it?

[Petrasylvania]

Which this shitshow could have been avoided if it were handled discreetly.

It was never going to be handled discreetly. Even if democrats would agree not to announce that Kavanaugh had been accused of this, republicans wouldn't investigate it.

The issue isn't how public it's been; It's that democrats view sexual assault allegations as a serious problem (Franken, Conyers) while republicans don't (Kavanaugh, Trump).

Seems like when Democrats try to be the adults they lose badly.

[Telconi]

Which this shitshow could have been avoided if it were handled discreetly.

It was never going to be handled discreetly. Even if democrats would agree not to announce that Kavanaugh had been accused of this, republicans wouldn't investigate it.

The issue isn't how public it's been; It's that democrats view sexual assault allegations as a serious problem (Franken, Conyers) while republicans don't (Kavanaugh, Trump).

Which is why the FBI has been looking into all those alleged rapes Bill Clinton commited?

[Telconi]

It was never going to be handled discreetly. Even if democrats would agree not to announce that Kavanaugh had been accused of this, republicans wouldn't investigate it.

The issue isn't how public it's been; It's that democrats view sexual assault allegations as a serious problem (Franken, Conyers) while republicans don't (Kavanaugh, Trump).

Seems like when Democrats try to be the adults they lose badly.

Did your crystal ball tell you this?

[Scomagia]

Which this shitshow could have been avoided if it were handled discreetly.

It was never going to be handled discreetly. Even if democrats would agree not to announce that Kavanaugh had been accused of this, republicans wouldn't investigate it.

The issue isn't how public it's been; It's that democrats view sexual assault allegations as a serious problem (Franken, Conyers) while republicans don't (Kavanaugh, Trump).

No, the issue is that Democrats have been treating dubious accusations from dubious sources as facts, even as they fail to substantiate those accusations.

[Arlenton]

Because he is against net neutrality.

I mean, why are you against it?

Because deregulation makes sense to me. And looking at the hysterical backlash against the repeal of NN rules, even the worst case scenarios described by NN activists would not be much of a hindrance to me personally.

Plus it pisses Reddit off which I find hilarious.

[Tarsonis]

Bill Maher makes a good point for Democrats and Liberals angry at how things are going.

A lot of crying lamenting about things that aren’t flaws, they’re features.

[Valrifell]

I mean, why are you against it?

Because deregulation makes sense to me. And looking at the hysterical backlash against the repeal of NN rules, even the worst case scenarios described by NN activists would not be much of a hindrance to me personally.

Plus it pisses Reddit off which I find hilarious.

It's a good thing to think beyond yourself every now and again. Just because it doesn't hinder you doesn't mean it's not bad.

[NS Miami Shores]

Seems like when Democrats try to be the adults they lose badly.

Did your crystal ball tell you this?

The Democrats in Congress the Adults, the one's who have been attacking, and accusing Brett Kavanaugh of anything they can think of, to deny him a seat as a US Supreme Court Judge from day one, lol, I am having a lol attack, I am lolling against the post not the poster, who has every right to his views and every right to post them, like I do. I don't want to be accused by anyone of having a lol attack.

[Tobleste]

It was never going to be handled discreetly. Even if democrats would agree not to announce that Kavanaugh had been accused of this, republicans wouldn't investigate it.

The issue isn't how public it's been; It's that democrats view sexual assault allegations as a serious problem (Franken, Conyers) while republicans don't (Kavanaugh, Trump).

Seems like when Democrats try to be the adults they lose badly.

In the short term, maybe. The more republicans become the 'pro-abuser' party, the more women and young voters will hate them. Republicans have been able to use voting laws, gerrymandering and higher turnout from evangelicals to avoid the predictions of a permanent democratic majority (which will never really happen) but republicans will pay a long term price for this. Democrats will nominate more liberal judges and be more obstructionist while college educated women will be happy to give them the power to do that. Also, democrat voters are now even more likely to back packing the court.

[The South Falls]

I mean, why are you against it?

Because deregulation makes sense to me. And looking at the hysterical backlash against the repeal of NN rules, even the worst case scenarios described by NN activists would not be much of a hindrance to me personally.

Plus it pisses Reddit off which I find hilarious.

Well, I think NN rules are good, and it's mostly needless deregulation. But, I'm not one to be hysterical over it.

[Petrasylvania]

Because deregulation makes sense to me. And looking at the hysterical backlash against the repeal of NN rules, even the worst case scenarios described by NN activists would not be much of a hindrance to me personally.

Plus it pisses Reddit off which I find hilarious.

It's a good thing to think beyond yourself every now and again. Just because it doesn't hinder you doesn't mean it's not bad.

Yep, like I said

Owning liberals, because he's wealthy enough to afford jacked package plans or a la carte internet.

[Arlenton]

Because deregulation makes sense to me. And looking at the hysterical backlash against the repeal of NN rules, even the worst case scenarios described by NN activists would not be much of a hindrance to me personally.

Plus it pisses Reddit off which I find hilarious.

Well, I think NN rules are good, and it's mostly needless deregulation. But, I'm not one to be hysterical over it.

You mean to say we're not all going to die because of Verizon oligarchy?

Corporatist sellout...

[Tobleste]

It was never going to be handled discreetly. Even if democrats would agree not to announce that Kavanaugh had been accused of this, republicans wouldn't investigate it.

The issue isn't how public it's been; It's that democrats view sexual assault allegations as a serious problem (Franken, Conyers) while republicans don't (Kavanaugh, Trump).

No, the issue is that Democrats have been treating dubious accusations from dubious sources as facts, even as they fail to substantiate those accusations.

1. They're not the accusers, they don't have to substantiate them.
2. Kavanaugh wasn't on trial so innocent until proven guilty can't be invoked to demand his confirmation because he has no right to it.
3. You don't have to think the sexual assault allegations are facts to oppose Kavanaugh.

[Telconi]

Because deregulation makes sense to me. And looking at the hysterical backlash against the repeal of NN rules, even the worst case scenarios described by NN activists would not be much of a hindrance to me personally.

Plus it pisses Reddit off which I find hilarious.

It's a good thing to think beyond yourself every now and again. Just because it doesn't hinder you doesn't mean it's not bad.

It hinders a lot of folks. the problem with our narrative is we've wedded "net neutrality" to the Title II regulations.

[Arlenton]

Because deregulation makes sense to me. And looking at the hysterical backlash against the repeal of NN rules, even the worst case scenarios described by NN activists would not be much of a hindrance to me personally.

Plus it pisses Reddit off which I find hilarious.

It's a good thing to think beyond yourself every now and again. Just because it doesn't hinder you doesn't mean it's not bad.

Tell that to those pushing for assault weapon bans.

[Telconi]

No, the issue is that Democrats have been treating dubious accusations from dubious sources as facts, even as they fail to substantiate those accusations.

1. They're not the accusers, they don't have to substantiate them.
2. Kavanaugh wasn't on trial so innocent until proven guilty can't be invoked to demand his confirmation because he has no right to it.
3. You don't have to think the sexual assault allegations are facts to oppose Kavanaugh.

1. Really?
2. It sure can, he may not have a codified right to such a threshold, but he has an ethical one, and the Senate can set whatever threshold of proof it so wishes.
3. I don't think anyone has argued this.

[Telconi]

It's a good thing to think beyond yourself every now and again. Just because it doesn't hinder you doesn't mean it's not bad.

Tell that to those pushing for assault weapon bans.

The Democrat position is automatically selfless and altruistic, the Republican position is automatically selfish and spiteful. (Also, every Republican bathes in money like Scrooge McDuck)

[Gig em Aggies]

Seems like when Democrats try to be the adults they lose badly.

In the short term, maybe. The more republicans become the 'pro-abuser' party, the more women and young voters will hate them. Republicans have been able to use voting laws, gerrymandering and higher turnout from evangelicals to avoid the predictions of a permanent democratic majority (which will never really happen) but republicans will pay a long term price for this. Democrats will nominate more liberal judges and be more obstructionist while college educated women will be happy to give them the power to do that. Also, democrat voters are now even more likely to back packing the court.

Since when are republicans the pro abuser party last I checked non of what Kavanaugh was accused of was corroborated by anyone including the FBI and its many background checks. Plus how many people who were caught up in the metoo movement lived in Democratic states let's see https://www.vox.com/a/sexual-harassment ... iam-jacoby oh look most of these people are either liberals, or live in democrat controlled states. Now who's the pro abuser party?