Kavanaugh Confirmation

#4,279
#4,279
ClearwaterVol said:
The republicans used to stand for family values. I still hear a portion of their base try to trot Trump out there as some pillar of virtue. It is sad to watch the right compromise its values to embrace Trump.
Click to expand...
The left has always hated family values, it's sad to watch you all suddenly talk about them simply because you hate Trump
 
#4,281
#4,281
ClearwaterVol said:
The republicans used to stand for family values. I still hear a portion of their base try to trot Trump out there as some pillar of virtue. It is sad to watch the right compromise its values to embrace Trump.
Click to expand...

And it cost them elections, times change.
 
#4,282
#4,282
ClearwaterVol said:
You are assuming a position which I have not asserted. I am merely stating that the right has sacrificed it's moral high ground to embrace Trump.
Click to expand...
No. The right had two horrible damn choices and chose what they deserved the lesser to be. And that’s what we’ve said. And yeah you were preaching
 
#4,284
#4,284
volfanjustin said:
The left has always hated family values, it's sad to watch you all suddenly talk about them simply because you hate Trump
Click to expand...

Hated family values? If you are accusing me of such then you are sadly mistaken. My definition of family values may differ from yours, but I have always tried to be a role model for my family in that regard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JCP201
#4,288
#4,288
ClearwaterVol said:
Hated family values. If you are accusing me of such then you are sadly mistaken. My definition of family values may differ from yours, but I have always tried to be a role model for my family in that regard.
Click to expand...
Then don’t presume that I pay my lawyer to keep my porn star shenanigans quiet by association either, huh “counselor”?
 
#4,291
#4,291
volfanjustin said:
anyone who likes the creepy hooker lawyer can't be reasonable
Click to expand...

Seriously, what standards do you hold your lawyers to? Trump relied on Cohen, who dealt with adult film actresses and worse I imagine. They are not exactly priests.. OK, maybe not the best analogy.

Avanatti is not afraid of the camera and he's bold. Sometimes that's exactly what a client needs.
 
#4,292
#4,292
NorthDallas40 said:
Then don’t presume that I pay my lawyer to keep my porn star shenanigans quiet by association either, huh “counselor”?
Click to expand...

I am not assuming such, ND. What I am saying is that the right used to demand some personal integrity from their leaders. I would think that Trump's lack thereof would get some outrage from the right, but they've circled the wagons.

I have made no personal attack on you, nor will I.
 
#4,293
#4,293
Grand Vol said:
The first will likely happen.

No time limits on the second.
Click to expand...

There has to be some sort of time limit in which she would act in order for us to have a bet. 2 months?

hog88 said:
I'm not deflecting, I believe Trump gave Cohen money to pay her off and both lied.
Click to expand...

What is disturbing is the ease with which Trump told his lie, in passing, in that snippet from AF1.

golfballs said:
Whoa... what am I missing? Are you saying she’s produced proof of what she’s alleging??? Please share
Click to expand...

Her testimony, under oath, is considered evidence. Its just like any under oath testimony. It is evidence. So is his testimony denying it. You want some sort of extraneous proof, like a photot or a video from 35 years ago, which is an impossible standard to meet.

But you know that..
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClearwaterVol
#4,294
#4,294
ClearwaterVol said:
I am not assuming such, ND. What I am saying is that the right used to demand some personal integrity from their leaders. I would think that Trump's lack thereof would get some outrage from the right, but they've circled the wagons.

I have made no personal attack on you, nor will I.
Click to expand...
The choice was Hills or Trump. That’s it. Like I’ve said before I didn’t vote for him. I absolutely believe he’s a lousy human being. But he’s done s decent job thus far and if that continues I’ll vote for him next time.

You want to blame the right as compromising their values. I’d state the right is doing what they can to level the playing field in a corrupt DC. You really think evangelicals want to have Trump over for lunch after Sunday service? Yes I’m aware you can probably find a couple of quick pics pointing to just such happening. But that doesn’t equate to the entire group. Just like the right you’re referring to doesn’t equate to all of us. We’ve seen the hand we were dealt. We can play it or fold.
 
#4,295
#4,295
lawgator1 said:
There has to be some sort of time limit in which she would act in order for us to have a bet. 2 months?



What is disturbing is the ease with which Trump told his lie, in passing, in that snippet from AF1.



Her testimony, under oath, is considered evidence. Its just like any under oath testimony. It is evidence. So is his testimony denying it. You want some sort of extraneous proof, like a photot or a video from 35 years ago, which is an impossible standard to meet.

But you know that..
Click to expand...
Ok, *corroborating* evidence. And you’re right 35 years later, without a SINGLE other person to corroborate the story, it does appear an impossible standard to meet. Which is exactly why this is a sideshow act. It’s pathetic
 
#4,296
#4,296
lawgator1 said:
There has to be some sort of time limit in which she would act in order for us to have a bet. 2 months?



What is disturbing is the ease with which Trump told his lie, in passing, in that snippet from AF1.



Her testimony, under oath, is considered evidence. Its just like any under oath testimony. It is evidence. So is his testimony denying it. You want some sort of extraneous proof, like a photot or a video from 35 years ago, which is an impossible standard to meet.

But you know that..
Click to expand...

"Under Oath"? When did this happen? All I have seen is that she has not said anything under oath.
 
#4,297
#4,297
lawgator1 said:
Her testimony, under oath, is considered evidence. Its just like any under oath testimony. It is evidence. So is his testimony denying it. You want some sort of extraneous proof, like a photot or a video from 35 years ago, which is an impossible standard to meet..
Click to expand...

However thus far she couldn’t be inconvenienced with providing said testimony under oath. And you guys keep discounting her complete uncooperative behavior. That’s disingenuous plain and simple.
 
#4,299
#4,299
According to Bongino's sources, there is no way Ford Testifies. Way too many holes in her story. Her testimony would be blown apart. DIMs are just trying to stall.
Time Start at 15:00
 
#4,300
#4,300
I believe she has agreed to appear on Thursday.

I think that her reticence is natural tough situation and after receiving death threats. I am interested to hear her story.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top