OFFICIAL: Kavanaugh Hearings Thread

[AzogtheDefiler]

So you took the bait? Good dog. You missed my overall point though. Dumbass Leftist.

No, I got your point. Your point is that you're a retard who's incapable of discerning an accusation proven false from an accusation not proven to be false.

That's on you -- no one else.

Not proven - means innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal construct. It has nothing to do with the Senate confirmation hearings.

I agree. But the collateral damage is that he can no longer coach his little girls basketball games. That’s cold given lack of evidence. Don’t care about SC that’s political. Ruining his poor kids childhood is unforgivable given the lack of evidence. Fuck politics. The kids’ lives were destroyed.

Like I asked, since when do rightards give a shit about someone's reputation?

So when you were 17 you denied the Holocaust? Why?

LOLOL

Oh, look.... you changed your idiocy. You went from claiming I am a Holocaust denier to claiming I was one at 17. Why'd you change your claims?

I didn’t change it. I just Didn’t specify it. Sucks to be you as the burden of proof is on you. You a rat faced c u next Tuesday.

 

[Faun]

No, I got your point. Your point is that you're a retard who's incapable of discerning an accusation proven false from an accusation not proven to be false.

That's on you -- no one else.

Not proven - means innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal construct. It has nothing to do with the Senate confirmation hearings.

Does the Senate usually follow the laws of our land or not ?

"Innocent until proven guilty" is not a law.

Just common sense. Something you don’t have.

LOLOL

Well I certainly have better sense than to accuse someone of being a Holocaust denier after they argued as many as 6 million Jews were killed in it.

 

[The Purge]

Were you loving it when real GDP hit 5.1% growth under Obama?

Obama's 2.1% growth was awesome!

About as awesome as Trump's 2.2%

View attachment 219557

Trump's done much better than 2.2%.

Stop lying. Not for a calendar year, he hasn't...


2017: 2.2%

Roskam says Obama admin the first to never top 3% in annual GDP growth
PolitiFact
Claim: “The past (Obama) administration was the first administration that never had a whole year of 3 percent growth."
Claimed by: Peter Roskam
Fact check by PolitiFact: Mostly True

So? So far, Trump is doing no better. And how about Bush? Only 2 of his 8 years were north of 3%. Does Bush get the credit for those 2 years?

Do we really care about Bush but he did do better than Oboma, and unemployment?

 

[Faun]

No, I got your point. Your point is that you're a retard who's incapable of discerning an accusation proven false from an accusation not proven to be false.

That's on you -- no one else.

Not proven - means innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal construct. It has nothing to do with the Senate confirmation hearings.

I agree. But the collateral damage is that he can no longer coach his little girls basketball games. That’s cold given lack of evidence. Don’t care about SC that’s political. Ruining his poor kids childhood is unforgivable given the lack of evidence. Fuck politics. The kids’ lives were destroyed.

Like I asked, since when do rightards give a shit about someone's reputation?

So when you were 17 you denied the Holocaust? Why?

LOLOL

Oh, look.... you changed your idiocy. You went from claiming I am a Holocaust denier to claiming I was one at 17. Why'd you change your claims?

I didn’t change it. I just Didn’t specify it. Sucks to be you as the burden of proof is on you. You a rat faced c u next Tuesday.

Of course you changed it. You said, I AM "a Holocaust denier." Now you say I WAS one at 17. So what changed?

You can't even comprehend tense. You have no chance at common sense.

 

[Faun]

About as awesome as Trump's 2.2%

View attachment 219557

Trump's done much better than 2.2%.

Stop lying. Not for a calendar year, he hasn't...


2017: 2.2%

Roskam says Obama admin the first to never top 3% in annual GDP growth
PolitiFact
Claim: “The past (Obama) administration was the first administration that never had a whole year of 3 percent growth."
Claimed by: Peter Roskam
Fact check by PolitiFact: Mostly True

So? So far, Trump is doing no better. And how about Bush? Only 2 of his 8 years were north of 3%. Does Bush get the credit for those 2 years?

Do we really care about Bush but he did do better than Oboma, and unemployment?

Of course we care about Bush. GDP has been over 3% only twice since he became president almost 18 years ago. Does he get the credit for those 2 years being above 3%?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Were you loving it when real GDP hit 5.1% growth under Obama?

Obama's 2.1% growth was awesome!

About as awesome as Trump's 2.2%

View attachment 219557

Trump's done much better than 2.2%.

Stop lying. Not for a calendar year, he hasn't...


2017: 2.2%

Obama's 2.1% over his entire presidency is weaker than Trump's entire presidency.

So? GDP was negative eight percent when Obama was sworn in and the economy was in freefall. Had the economy been like that in 2017 when Trump took over, he'd be way under the 2.2% he ended up at.

GDP was negative eight percent when Obama was sworn in

Not really.

and the economy was in freefall.

Only if freefall means....the recession ended in June 2009.

 

[The Purge]

View attachment 219557

Trump's done much better than 2.2%.

Stop lying. Not for a calendar year, he hasn't...


2017: 2.2%

Roskam says Obama admin the first to never top 3% in annual GDP growth
PolitiFact
Claim: “The past (Obama) administration was the first administration that never had a whole year of 3 percent growth."
Claimed by: Peter Roskam
Fact check by PolitiFact: Mostly True

So? So far, Trump is doing no better. And how about Bush? Only 2 of his 8 years were north of 3%. Does Bush get the credit for those 2 years?

Do we really care about Bush but he did do better than Oboma, and unemployment?

Of course we care about Bush. GDP has been over 3% only twice since he became president almost 18 years ago. Does he get the credit for those 2 years being above 3%?

Shall we go back to FDR? Or stay within fairly recentvhistory... 10 years?

 

[The Purge]

Mod Note -- No material from other message boards. Removed the 1st link. The Purge

The Aiken Standard ^

A new report from Gallup should sober up those expecting a "blue wave" in the November elections.

According to this recently released report, the percent of Americans saying they have a "favorable" view of Republicans now stands at 45 percent, up from 36 percent. Favorability for Democrats stands at 44 percent, exactly where it was last September.

This is the highest favorability for Republicans since January 2011, when it stood at 47 percent just after Republicans gained control of Congress in the 2010 midterm elections.

Of particular interest are large gains for Republican favorability among men – now at 50 percent, up from 37 percent a year ago – and middle-income households ($30,000 to $74,999), now at 49 percent, up from 36 percent a year ago.

Republican favorability has even increased among women – 40 percent now compared to 35 percent last September.

It makes complete sense that Republican favorability among voters should be surging and that Democrat favorability should be languishing.

How could the shameful carnival that Democrats have created around the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh not hurt them?

One of the most common mistakes made today is to think that political process – that is, democracy – is what makes us free. No, it is law.

It is law that protects life, liberty and property. Rule of law, which is honored, respected and applied equally to every citizen regardless of race, gender and anything else, must stand above political bias. This assures our society is free and just.

The absence of equally applied law is what tore our nation apart in the 1850s, with the acceptance of slavery and the infamous Dred Scott decision, denying African-Americans legal status as citizens.

The whole point of the 14th Amendment, enacted after the Civil War, was to guarantee every American due process and equal protection under the law.

But with this show around Kavanaugh's confirmation, the Democratic Party has unmasked itself as a party whose only interest is in a left-wing political agenda, not the law.

It is exactly why Democrats see conservative judges, like Kavanaugh, who take the Constitution seriously, as a mortal threat. Democrats want politics and their agenda, not law.

Hence, an outstanding and honorable man's good name and reputation is being besmirched with unsubstantiated and tenuous claims.

The long-accepted tradition that the burden of proof is upon the accuser, not the accused, is being thrown to the trash bin.

It should be of particular concern to blacks and women that we live in a nation in which law stands above politics. Blacks, because this is what the civil rights movement was about. Women, because this is not just about themselves and their daughters but equally about their husbands and sons.

The economy is booming. In recent days, stock indexes have reached new highs and, as The Wall Street Journal reports, new claims for jobless benefits have "hit a half-century low."

The National Federation of Independent Business reports record high optimism and hiring plans among small businesses, the main job generators in our economy.

The Republican Senate has now confirmed 68 conservative judges to the federal bench – with 125 to go.

And every federal department administrating anti-poverty funds – which constitute one-quarter of the federal budget – must follow an executive order from President Donald Trump to become more efficient.

Yes, it's true that generally the president's party loses congressional seats in midterm elections. However, in 2014, Democrats lost only 13 House seats in the midterms, despite Barack Obama's 44 percent approval, which isn't far from where Trump stands today.

Republicans need to stand firm with the truth on Kavanaugh. That plus the great economic news in our nation will take them over the finish line in November.

 

[The Purge]

Safeway Ford Says She Visited in 1982 Didn’t exist Until 1986

Vanity/Twitter ^
The #Safeway store that #DrFord claims to have gone to in 1982 after the attempted rape, didn’t open until 1986 ... #KavanaughConfirmation

 

[The Purge]

Republicans Just Got GREAT News on Kavanaugh Report

The Black Sphere ^ | 09-30-2018 | Kevin Jackson
According to Fox News: The sex-crimes prosecutor Republicans hired to question Brett Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford at Thursday’s hearing told senators the case would not hold up in a courtroom, sources told Fox News—guidance that could prove critical as wavering lawmakers prepare to vote.

 

[The Purge]

Yes, there are ‘MANY’ women showing support for Brett Kavanaugh, and here’s proof

Twitchy ^
Though you probably won’t hear about them on CNN, there are quite a few women who are showing their support for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

 

[Faun]

Stop lying. Not for a calendar year, he hasn't...


2017: 2.2%

Roskam says Obama admin the first to never top 3% in annual GDP growth
PolitiFact
Claim: “The past (Obama) administration was the first administration that never had a whole year of 3 percent growth."
Claimed by: Peter Roskam
Fact check by PolitiFact: Mostly True

So? So far, Trump is doing no better. And how about Bush? Only 2 of his 8 years were north of 3%. Does Bush get the credit for those 2 years?

Do we really care about Bush but he did do better than Oboma, and unemployment?

Of course we care about Bush. GDP has been over 3% only twice since he became president almost 18 years ago. Does he get the credit for those 2 years being above 3%?

Shall we go back to FDR? Or stay within fairly recentvhistory... 10 years?

No, we should go back to when GDP started to regularly come in under 3%. But if you don't want to answer, or can't answer, that's ok.

 

[The Purge]

Roskam says Obama admin the first to never top 3% in annual GDP growth
PolitiFact
Claim: “The past (Obama) administration was the first administration that never had a whole year of 3 percent growth."
Claimed by: Peter Roskam
Fact check by PolitiFact: Mostly True

So? So far, Trump is doing no better. And how about Bush? Only 2 of his 8 years were north of 3%. Does Bush get the credit for those 2 years?

Do we really care about Bush but he did do better than Oboma, and unemployment?

Of course we care about Bush. GDP has been over 3% only twice since he became president almost 18 years ago. Does he get the credit for those 2 years being above 3%?

Shall we go back to FDR? Or stay within fairly recentvhistory... 10 years?

No, we should go back to when GDP started to regularly come in under 3%. But if you don't want to answer, or can't answer, that's ok.

I'm game you tell me!

 

[Faun]

So? So far, Trump is doing no better. And how about Bush? Only 2 of his 8 years were north of 3%. Does Bush get the credit for those 2 years?

Do we really care about Bush but he did do better than Oboma, and unemployment?

Of course we care about Bush. GDP has been over 3% only twice since he became president almost 18 years ago. Does he get the credit for those 2 years being above 3%?

Shall we go back to FDR? Or stay within fairly recentvhistory... 10 years?

No, we should go back to when GDP started to regularly come in under 3%. But if you don't want to answer, or can't answer, that's ok.

I'm game you tell me!

LOLOL

Then answer the question.... does Bush get the credit for the 2 years during his terms for when GDP was over 3% annually?

 

[The Purge]

Do we really care about Bush but he did do better than Oboma, and unemployment?

Of course we care about Bush. GDP has been over 3% only twice since he became president almost 18 years ago. Does he get the credit for those 2 years being above 3%?

Shall we go back to FDR? Or stay within fairly recentvhistory... 10 years?

No, we should go back to when GDP started to regularly come in under 3%. But if you don't want to answer, or can't answer, that's ok.

I'm game you tell me!

LOLOL

Then answer the question.... does Bush get the credit for the 2 years during his terms for when GDP was over 3% annually?

Like I said, I'm game , apparantly not the way you prance around, explain!

 

[Ame®icano]

Burden of proof is ALWAYS on the accuser, ANYWHERE, EVERYWHERE, 24/7. It is a fundamental rock of our CULTURE, and way of life. Demonrats calling it as only applying to courtrooms, is just another example of their dishonest, sewer politics.

EVERYONE in America is bound by the principle of presumption of innocence. This is a standard that we live and breathe by. You are innocent, until the accuser proves you guilty. That is ANY accuser, anywhere, including Senate Demonrats and their puppet stooge, Christine B. Ford.

Amazing to see lowlifes rejecting this heart and soul concept of our nation. Maybe it's because they don't feel like they are part of this nation, but instead are open borders GLOBALISTS, who kneel during our national anthem, and are constantly talking about what THE WORLD thinks.

You’re an idiot. Burden of proof applies only in law, not in the court of public opinion.

Want proof of that? No Senator has to find Ford met a burden of proof in order to reject Kavanaugh.

Yet they demand investigations of the allegations even though they already stated they will never vote for him anyway..........

She is accusing Kav of a crime............period.............but since it's all public opinion and not a court of law...........then we should vote already and say the hell with any further investigation.........

You got the investigation only because a few RINO's balked.

Republicans run the Senate. They could have called for the vote at anytime. There is no burden of proof that needs to be met. Rightard media is dumbing down the right.

But they didn't call for a vote anytime.

They gave accuser and accused chance to talk. They wanted to fly to her, only "message never got to her". They gave in to all her reasonable demands just to show up. They postponed the vote several times, and finally when they have set the vote after her missing several deadlines, her lawyers, and leftists allowed her to testify.

You're acting like you haven't notice any of that, like it didn't happen.

No, I’m reacting to the nonsense that there is a burden of proof on Ford. There isn’t. She levies her accusations and it’s up the the Senators to decide for themselves if they find her claims credible.

I could agree with that to some point.

In order to find it credible, the accusation itself is not enough, there need to be a proof, or proofs. Beside the accusation itself, the story she offered did not provide any proof, or a witness, and had too many holes that have been mentioned so many times already.

I believe the only reason leftists are believing, or saying they believe in her story without any proof to back it up, is because they want the confirmation to be delayed until after the election. Assuming that Kavanaugh will be confirmed, leftists will throw Christine Blasey under the bus moments after the confirmation.

 

[deltex1]

BE SURE TO WATCH MARK LEVIN INTERVIEW THE GOV OF KENTUCKY MATT BEVIN.. THE GUY IS UNIQUE AND BRILLIANT!

 

[The Purge]

Damn the ABNORMALS are getting truly desperate, they are also losing large chunks of the voting block, as intelligent people see what they are doing and don't like it!....Keep up the good work retards!

Still Lacking Evidence of Sexual Assault, Democrats Now Want Kavanaugh Investigated for Perjury
The Daily Caller ^

Still lacking corroborating evidence of disputed sexual misconduct accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, some Democrats now want Kavanaugh investigated for perjury in the latest iteration of their months-long campaign to derail his confirmation.

The perjury push comes as Democrats still lack corroborating evidence to support professor Christine Blasey Ford‘s claim that Kavanaugh tried to drunkenly force himself on her while the two were in high school.

Plan D.....

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[Faun]

Of course we care about Bush. GDP has been over 3% only twice since he became president almost 18 years ago. Does he get the credit for those 2 years being above 3%?

Shall we go back to FDR? Or stay within fairly recentvhistory... 10 years?

No, we should go back to when GDP started to regularly come in under 3%. But if you don't want to answer, or can't answer, that's ok.

I'm game you tell me!

LOLOL

Then answer the question.... does Bush get the credit for the 2 years during his terms for when GDP was over 3% annually?

Like I said, I'm game , apparantly not the way you prance around, explain!

LOL

I asked you a simple question. One, apparently, you can't seem to answer.