Democrats Foot in Mouths: Blasey Ford's Attorney Admits Her Testimony was Politically Motivated

[Marcus Aurelius]

I would have to go back and look at the post I was replying to. I think the poster was questioning my usage of the term(childish) in reference to Trump's behavior.

this is NOT a Trump thread. Stick to the topic in the OP.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Of course Obama had some down time... it's probably needed by any president -- it's a stress filled occupation.
When I commented about the president setting the tone for our nation. It was in regard to upholding certain standards pertaining to protocols, showing restraint, being respectful toward others, even if there is disagreement.
Trump's twitter usage seems mostly devoted to bashing those that disagree with him, making ugly comments unbefitting to the office/title he holds.

I can understand what you're saying, I guess it comes down to what you, and the people, are looking for in a leader or president these days.

Do you want the "presidential", polished, refined individual who many might think is a total phony?

Or do you want the brash, uncensored individual who people might appreciate to a degree deep down even if they aren't totally on board with everything he says.

As a Conservative, I thought Mitt Romney was a decent individual, but as a candidate he was vanilla.. bland... not to mention totally in with the establishment. I think Trump is sometimes an idiot for going after things he does, but I also think he's good to fight back against some of these very influential individuals who are making bold negative declarations about him daily.

Because think about it.. Trump doesn't have a complicit, soldier media to defend him like Obama and Democrats do. Even if ridiculous claims are made, they are magnified and repeated. I don't think leftists realize what it's like to not have 90% of the media complex constantly fighting for you.

 

[Addy]

this is NOT a Trump thread. Stick to the topic in the OP.

As it happens often here... the topics can intertwine or morph into other areas. I understand your comment but I am not the only one on the thread that did it.

 

[Addy]

I can understand what you're saying, I guess it comes down to what you, and the people, are looking for in a leader or president these days.

Do you want the "presidential", polished, refined individual who many might think is a total phony?

Or do you want the brash, uncensored individual who people might appreciate to a degree deep down even if they aren't totally on board with everything he says.

As a Conservative, I thought Mitt Romney was a decent individual, but as a candidate he was vanilla.. bland... not to mention totally in with the establishment. I think Trump is sometimes an idiot for going after things he does, but I also think he's good to fight back against some of these very influential individuals who are making bold negative declarations about him daily.

Because think about it.. Trump doesn't have a complicit, soldier media to defend him like Obama and Democrats do. Even if ridiculous claims are made, they are magnified and repeated. I don't think leftists realize what it's like to not have 90% of the media complex constantly fighting for you.

I have been told by another poster... Trump is not the topic... sorry.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I have been told by another poster... Trump is not the topic... sorry.

Hey, even I got off topic, and I'm the freakin guy who made the thread.

Oops. LOL

 

[Addy]

Hey, even I got off topic, and I'm the freakin guy who made the thread.

Oops. LOL

It's easy to do sometimes... most of us are guilty.

 

[EatTheRich]

I can understand what you're saying, I guess it comes down to what you, and the people, are looking for in a leader or president these days.

Do you want the "presidential", polished, refined individual who many might think is a total phony?

Or do you want the brash, uncensored individual who people might appreciate to a degree deep down even if they aren't totally on board with everything he says.

As a Conservative, I thought Mitt Romney was a decent individual, but as a candidate he was vanilla.. bland... not to mention totally in with the establishment. I think Trump is sometimes an idiot for going after things he does, but I also think he's good to fight back against some of these very influential individuals who are making bold negative declarations about him daily.

Because think about it.. Trump doesn't have a complicit, soldier media to defend him like Obama and Democrats do. Even if ridiculous claims are made, they are magnified and repeated. I don't think leftists realize what it's like to not have 90% of the media complex constantly fighting for you.

4 things Trump does/says in a typical week would have sufficed to drum Obama out of office with MSM approval.

 

[ObamacareForever]

You can apologize to Brett Kavanaugh whenever you'd like...

"In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine's testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court. We were going to have a conservative [justice] ... Elections have consequences, but he will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine."

https://www.dailywire.com/news/51524/watch-christine-blasey-ford-attorney-admits-video-amanda-prestigiacomo​

Don't like an opposing point of view? Claim he raped you.

Gosh, you're so helping this country..

"politically motivated" doesn't mean false.

 

[ObamacareForever]

I've also noticed that leftist talking points that quickly are pretty much disproven and shot down are still constantly repeated and represented as fact on the leftist mainstream media cartel.

Trump IS a Russian Spy.
Trump DID collude with Russia
Kavanaugh DID commit perjury
Kavanaugh IS a rapist

It's a religious devotion against Trump. One begins any discussion or belief with the faith that Trump must be guilty, and move on from there.

It's just not compatible with intellectual discourse and debate.

How's that different than claiming Hillary is bought and paid for by Russia?
Or that Obama was born in Kenya?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

"politically motivated" doesn't mean false.

Yet it ensures a massive conflict of interest, and entirely questioning the reason for the charge in the first place.

Once that motivation is known, the credibility goes out the window, not that it already isn't.

With her over-the-top acting, messing up her hair on purpose, talking in a completely voice than she usually does... she was playing a character from the start IMO. And that's not even counting admitted having 0 evidence of her claims.

It's a bigger political witchhunt than the GOP after Clinton for the Lewinski Sex Scandal.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

How's that different than claiming Hillary is bought and paid for by Russia?
Or that Obama was born in Kenya?

Is 90% of the media leading off with those headlines? For a year? 2 years? Are tons of major politicians and pundits saying this? That answer, as you know, is no.

Yes, people exist who say that things like Obama was born in Kenya. I've never much cared.. I know there's some evidence and it would have technically made him ineligible to be president, but I say beat him in ideology. Sadly, the GOP didn't offer up good alternatives. But GOP primaries aren't talking about how Obama was born in Kenya, years of footage isn't being dedicated to saying he was born in Kenya.

Your problem here is trying to compare massively different ratios.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

4 things Trump does/says in a typical week would have sufficed to drum Obama out of office with MSM approval.

LMAO

The media cartel was absolutely goo-goo gah-gah over Obama. They consistently defended him from GOP claims, unlike their compliant adopting and exaggeration of Democrat claims against Trump.

Can you list any rational on why you'd say such a ridiculous thing?

 

[ObamacareForever]

Yet it ensures a massive conflict of interest, and entirely questioning the reason for the charge in the first place.

Once that motivation is known, the credibility goes out the window, not that it already isn't.

With her over-the-top acting, messing up her hair on purpose, talking in a completely voice than she usually does... she was playing a character from the start IMO. And that's not even counting admitted having 0 evidence of her claims.

It's a bigger political witchhunt than the GOP after Clinton for the Lewinski Sex Scandal.

So You Don't have any evidence she lied.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

So You Don't have any evidence she lied.

That's not how criminal justice works.

The burden of proof is on her.

I can't believe I have to explain this to an adult. I don't mean to be insulting (I know I kind of am), but geez.. this is the ultimate basics.

 

[ObamacareForever]

That's not how criminal justice works.

The burden of proof is on her.

I can't believe I have to explain this to an adult. I don't mean to be insulting (I know I kind of am), but geez.. this is the ultimate basics.

It wasn't criminal justice. It was a job interview. And being accused of sexual assault ain't good enough to sit on the supreme court. Unless your a Republican who's bar is so low any dipsh*t would says nice things about Trump can hold any position. They are the party of low standards.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

It wasn't criminal justice. It was a job interview. And being accused of sexual assault ain't good enough to sit on the supreme court. Unless your a Republican who's bar is so low any dipsh*t would says nice things about Trump can hold any position. They are the party of low standards.

So what if an opposing party makes a false claim?

What if a justice you personally would like to see is up for vote, and the GOP grabs an obvious plant and has them claim "sexual assault"

By your definition, that person would not be "good enough" to sit on the supreme court, right? The accusation is out there. That's your only criteria.

 

[trapdoor]

I've never said For'ds testimony was untrue, merely insufficient. She can't identify the place, the date or the time of day. She has no corroborating witnesses.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

It wasn't criminal justice. It was a job interview. And being accused of sexual assault ain't good enough to sit on the supreme court. Unless your a Republican who's bar is so low any dipsh*t would says nice things about Trump can hold any position. They are the party of low standards.

So what if an opposing party makes a false claim?

What if a justice you personally would like to see is up for vote, and the GOP grabs an obvious plant and has them claim "sexual assault"

By your definition, that person would not be "good enough" to sit on the supreme court, right? The accusation is out there. That's your only criteria.

 

[ObamacareForever]

So what if an opposing party makes a false claim?

What if a justice you personally would like to see is up for vote, and the GOP grabs an obvious plant and has them claim "sexual assault"

By your definition, that person would not be "good enough" to sit on the supreme court, right? The accusation is out there. That's your only criteria.

That's right. Kavannaugh isn't good enough. He is trash, and he cost the Republican party the respect of a generation of people.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

That's right. Kavannaugh isn't good enough. He is trash, and he cost the Republican party the respect of a generation of people.

That’s nice. Why don’t you answer the question I asked.