Do you support Mr. Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford?

Blah blah blah

Being female is a crime and females are stupid.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is that your bottom line?
or
Did you wish to rephrase that?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't know what you mean, could you explain?

 

Well I won't answer for Beer's hyperbola, but Bells has a point you can't refute: the republicans have no moral qualms about who they back, so long as he has a (R) behind his name they will vote for him, he can be a open pederast, pussy grabbing, accused rapist, disgusting pig and they will vote for him, and defend him, and disparage his victims!

If democrats had an ounce of that kind of brutal loyalty Hillary would have won easily, email scandal be damned.

 

*eek*

I'm a a women, hence, I do not deserve to be responded to.

 

IMHO the democrats used Ford, and used her badly.

Absent corroboration, anyone could have seen how this would play out.
But the desperate and despicable democrats trotted her out much like an organ grinder's monkey.
And, left her to suffer her indignity on national TV, with no regard for the emotional suffering that she is likely to endure.
The supplied lawyers didn't even bother to tell her that she could have testified in private. (she should probably sue them for malfeasance)
She was but tissue paper for a partisan game---use her once, then throw her away.

 

Given that she was the driving force behind her accusation - that's not fact-based. (Perhaps it is a good alternative fact, however.)

Unfortunately for your smear, she trotted herself out.

 

Did you forget that Christine Blasey Ford initially requested confidentiality?

 

My side?
I caucused for dennis kucinich
I caucused for bernie sanders

You seem to want to see the simplicity of dichotomy when everything is actually quite 3 dimensional.

 

Nope. Did you forget that she was the one who insisted on an FBI investigation, then asked to testify?

 

No you as an individual need to answer questions directed to you.

 

He lied on TV, to everyone watching with a lick of sense or an internet connection with a search engine.
No FBI investigation required - the links to lists of open lies are all over these threads.

He did, in a couple of cases - the more severe ones, as it happens.

There'd be no hypocrisy involved. You seem incapable of recognizing that.
But you can still take it as a warning from the front - almost nobody in Minnesota is going to vote for Tina Smith because they admire the way the Dems handled Franken. Nobody at all. She's not running on that - she's put some distance between herself and the Franken debacle, because a reputation for being manipulated into doing dumb stuff for bullshit reasons is a handicap in Minnesota. And it can cost the Dems a Senate seat they kind of need.

To Republicans, sure. So? It does anyway. Quit trying to suck up to those people - it won't work. They are never going to be impressed with your self-assessments of the image you want to project.

These women you presume to insult as stupid and gullible - the large majority of Democratic and strongly feminist women in Minnesota, an impressive crowd if you've ever met them - aren't believing their own rhetorical idiocies, or talking themselves into rhetorical corners where they must injure themselves on principle like some kind of Chinese footbinders. So - - - stupid? gullible? mirror handy?

These kinds of fantasies, if promulgated too widely, will hurt a lot of people. They may cost the Dems Senate seats, even House leadership.

The Dems were not strong here. They were dunked on, judo-thrown, beaten like rented mules and redheaded stepchildren, bullied into submission and abjection, and partly by their own hands. If they don't know that, they're in trouble.

Again.

 

Sure. Almost certainly.
But nobody knows what they are, yet. It's a new field.

That's the wingnut line, sure - the "bothsides" narrative, the media deflection of Republican accountability that is your humble opinion in all such matters.

When the Republicans denied Ford, Ramirez, Whetley, Ludington, and a dozen others, their normal and routine FBI investigation - third party support for the facts - what in your opinion should Ford have done?

 

Some are, some aren't.

It's a big one. As long as you don't fall into the "so it's the only one" trap then you are good.

 

you think some people are socialized with a sexual preference? ... Does that mean gay conversion therapy can work?

I stated repeatedly it is not the only factor, or even the major factor for some behaviors.

untrue, we know of many, sexual preferences for one.

Also I've put the Franken debacle behind me, so long as Tina wins. Right now 538 is giving Tina a 88.4% chance of winning.

Also approval for trump and the republicans has been gaining since the ford vs Kav testimonies which could mean the republicans are gaining traction with their propaganda it was all democrat smear.

 

I guess they were silly to hope any Republican had a conscience.

 

Some people are socialized to express one or the other, yes. Imagine a bisexual born in Utah in 1930 and raised in a Mormon farming household. Now compare that to a bisexual born today in San Francisco, going to college at UCLA. The former will tend to express as a heterosexual; the latter is more likely to express as gay.

Note that this does not mean that socialization has made their preference "go away" - it just means that they're expressing a part of that preference depending on their socialization.

Nope.

Good!

 

yeah but you would have to be born bisexual to begin with.