- Dec 16, 2017
- 2,421
- 3,264
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I understand that you've been ignoring my words.You don’t seem to understand what’s going on...
Where's the hard evidence?
You're not interested in having a dialogue, so don't speak to me any further.But the accusations might be true...
I smell toast....
So we’re done discussing how neither of us know if the accusations are true or not?You're not interested in having a dialogue, so don't speak to me any further.
Or it might not.
I'd be more convinced if the democrats hadn't waited until the last possible moment to unveil all of this. The fact that they delayed as long as they did tells everyone that:
A) this is a politically motivated attack, and
B) they're so unconfident in these claims that they didn't want to give the committee the time to investigate them soon enough to let the vote take place if proven false.
And again- they might not. And if we assume the confidence level of the senate democrats who sat on these claims for weeks for ourselves, they're probably not.
And for the third time, they might not and probably aren't. You're not listening to me, are you?
Irregardless, they can't be proven. The claims are anywhere from 15 to 36 years old. Law enforcement would have a hard enough time making a case if they'd been reported at the time, they can't be expected to build one decades after the fact based on one person's word and four "eyewitnesses" who disagree with their story, or even "eyewitnesses" who back them up. Where's the hard evidence?
There is no evidence.
You are dealing with a child mentality here, the repetitive refrain straight from the third grade playground.
And for the third time, they might not and probably aren't. You're not listening to me, are you?
Irregardless, they can't be proven. The claims are anywhere from 15 to 36 years old. Law enforcement would have a hard enough time making a case if they'd been reported at the time, they can't be expected to build one decades after the fact based on one person's word and four "eyewitnesses" who disagree with their story, or even "eyewitnesses" who back them up. Where's the hard evidence?
Only if he toes the republican party line.So, without an investigation having been completed, ol’ Mitch thought it completely appropriate to call on a Senator to quit. Should a Supreme Court nominee be held to a lesser standard...?
I smell toast....
Here’s what your leader in the Senate had to say about a series of allegations...
“The daily barrage of allegations of sexual misconduct against Senator Franken are extremely concerning to all of us in the Senate,” the Kentucky Republican said in a statement. “While the Senate Ethics Committee is reviewing these serious allegations, it now appears that Sen. Franken has lost the support of his colleagues, and most importantly, his constituents.
“I do not believe he can effectively serve the people of Minnesota in the U.S. Senate any longer.”
So, without an investigation having been completed, ol’ Mitch thought it completely appropriate to call on a Senator to quit. Should a Supreme Court nominee be held to a lesser standard...?
A few points. First, McConnell said Franken has lost the support of his constituents in Minnesota and fellow Senators, two essential components for an elected office. As a result, McConnell concluded Franken could not serve the people of Minnesota. But Franken was elected, not up for nomination, and only Franken could determine or the electorate of Minnesota would be the arbiters as to whether Franken could serve them.
The Franken example is not applicable to Kavanaugh.
A few points. First, McConnell said Franken has lost the support of his constituents in Minnesota and fellow Senators, two essential components for an elected office.
As a result, McConnell concluded Franken could not serve the people of Minnesota. But Franken was elected, not up for nomination, and only Franken could determine or the electorate of Minnesota would be the arbiters as to whether Franken could serve them.
The Franken example is not applicable to Kavanaugh.
That “refrain” is coming from (now) 5 independent and (as far as we know) unrelated sources. At least 2 of them are highly educated professional women, hardly ‘playground’ mentalities...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?