
Why bring up revealing partisanship if you knew it made no sense?

More straws...

You're forgetting Gramps is in full lawyer mode right now.Transient wrote:He wasn't on trial, they don't need to prove anything. He was applying for a job.
Eraser wrote:You're forgetting Gramps is in full lawyer mode right now.Transient wrote:He wasn't on trial, they don't need to prove anything. He was applying for a job.
Sorry referencing facts and verifiable information is so tasking for you. I know it's even tougher for the people who are emotionally invested. Their political bias guides their decision making process and blinds them to any information that detracts from the current party agenda. Poor saps...Eraser wrote:You're forgetting Gramps is in full lawyer mode right now.
This from the guy who thinks he's created a better form of communism.Κracus wrote:More like full ostrich mode, head burying commence.
not that i'm defending the guy but the salient word here is "accused". denying someone employment on the basis of an unproven accusation, if it were standard company policy, would be wide open to abuseTransient wrote:He was applying for a job. If you were applying for a job working at a bank and your boss found out 4 women had accused you of sexual assault, you bet your ass you wouldn't get the job.
I understand this point. However, in normal arenas of law the accused/accuser is afforded an investigation to determine the validity of these claims. In fact, the FBI is one of the best at this but hard to expect them to do a thorough job with a limited investigation.seremtan wrote:not that i'm defending the guy but the salient word here is "accused". denying someone employment on the basis of an unproven accusation, if it were standard company policy, would be wide open to abuseTransient wrote:He was applying for a job. If you were applying for a job working at a bank and your boss found out 4 women had accused you of sexual assault, you bet your ass you wouldn't get the job.
'believe women' is supposed to mean 'take their claims seriously' not 'believe whatever they say without question as if it were undisputed fact'
I didn't expect you'd understand.Κracus wrote:You mean the parts where you just ignore those points and talk around them while denying any problems? Sorry that's not really making a point, that's more like avoiding one.
I don't have a political affiliation or emotional connection, so I have no stake in this game. I don't know Kavanaugh personally, so I can't speak to his "normal" or "irrational" behavior. I do know he graduated from a prestigious college and has a long service record to the legal profession and higher courts. Seemingly a shoe-in for appointment. The democratic party didn't have a problem with the guy either, until his recent appointment.raw wrote:Gramps, I felt you evaded any real talking points here. Either that, or as Kracus eluded to, you're totally ok with everything you witnessed by Kavanaugh.
The reality is wizard is that it is time to go back to the gold standard....Transient wrote:Wow, your ability to miss the point is impressive. The fact that SCOTUS is more important than some rando bank job is exactly my point. And I knew you'd make a comment about "revealed partisanship", which is precisely why I went back and edited my post to add the bit in parenthesis. But no, reading comprehension isn't your thing I suppose.
well, this was 36 years agoraw wrote:I understand this point. However, in normal arenas of law the accused/accuser is afforded an investigation to determine the validity of these claims. In fact, the FBI is one of the best at this but hard to expect them to do a thorough job with a limited investigation.
So to that point, we left this in a he said/she said state and made decisions without facts. The American people were scammed!
your 100th birthday!seremtan wrote:well, this was 36 years agoraw wrote:I understand this point. However, in normal arenas of law the accused/accuser is afforded an investigation to determine the validity of these claims. In fact, the FBI is one of the best at this but hard to expect them to do a thorough job with a limited investigation.
So to that point, we left this in a he said/she said state and made decisions without facts. The American people were scammed!
all i remember from 36 years ago was getting a telegram from the Queen
I didn't like the guy but at least he was smart enough not to interfere with the Mueller investigation. The new guy is just being placed there to kill that same investigation, I mean, is that even a democracy anymore? It's literally abuse of power and makes an absolute mockery of the american democratic system.MKJ wrote: lol Sessions.
Now he's using a doctored video to justify revoking his press credentials. Fake news!MKJ wrote:Jesus Christ that thing with Jim Acosta? What a manchild Drumpf is.
it's like having my own comedy wingmanHM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:your 100th birthday!seremtan wrote:all i remember from 36 years ago was getting a telegram from the Queen
Hey menkent. It's been yearsmenkent wrote:also, why is his face orange but the bags under his eyes are pink? it's like a racist vaudeville caricature of an oompa loompa. given his history, that might even be plausible.