Ric Flair

Try empathizing with a man for a change. Have you ever considered how grating these types of discussions are and how tiresome it gets to be blamed for stuff all the time? Do you have any idea how many annoying things women do constantly? One is constantly blaming men for everything. So how is it fine for women to complain about men spreading their legs on public transit (we do that because in warm weather our manparts need some air) or men doing them the courtesy if explaining things to them....but objectionable when a man points hiw annoying the incessant whining and complaining is? How about simply living your life and not always looking for some reason to take offense at something or lose your mind over some perceived insult? Try it sometime.

Probably thousands. It’s amazing to hear those posters blather about what a bunch of independent thinkers they are and then see them constantly posting their liberal drivel like those wackadoo women from The View.

Every other story I read anymore is about alleged sexism or misogyny. Mansplaining. Manspreading. Claiming that women simply have to be believed when they make allegations of sexual assault or misconduct, regardless of the facts, the respective credibility of those involved, etc. Whining about alleged wage disparities based on BS statistics. The list goes on and on and on. I think most people are simply sick of hearing about it.

I’m in no way swallowing his talking points whole. You’re simply in complete denial about his successes. Typical.

How many liberals want the electoral college abolished? How many want to abolish the system of two Senators per state and redistribute them based on population? How many want to pack the Supreme Court woth more justices as soon as they recapture the White House and the Senate? I’m reading column after column with liberals advocating changing the rules because they’re tired of losing. They’re freaking out left and right. If you haven’t seen that, then I suggest you become better informed. A lot of liberals are acting like triggered whiny crybaby idiots who have completely lost their minds. Blaming me for simply pointing that out is the type of nonsense that make liberals liberals.

Clinton and the liberals were aghast when Trump suggested that he might not accept an unfavorable election result. They were horrified that he could be opposed to everythung America stands for. They lost their damn minds. But then as soon as Trump won, they did (snd continue to) deny that the results were legitimate. They blame the Russians. They blame white people. They blame women. They blame everyone else. And they’re so filled with impotent rage, they want to abolosh the Electoral College. Politics with the Dems is a little like playing Monopoly with a 6 year old. If they don’t like the result, they will just flip over the board.

Does the fact she knew him tend to make it more likely that he sexually assaulted her? I don’t think that corroborates anything.

Corroborating evidence is obviously evidence that backs up one’s claims and helps to prove that it is true. So in a sense, it is a form of a proof, as it helps to prove one’s claims. The fact that after being asked repeatedly, you can only point to Ford and Kavanaugh knowing each other as corroboration of her claim that he attempted to rape her is pretty mind-blowing. There’s really nothing else? She doesn’t know where it was, when it was, whose house it was, how she got there, how she got home, or any other key details, and the people she claimed were there deny being there or having any idea what she’s talking about. She said she can’t fly in planes because she’s scared, but flies all the time. She claimed she has two front doors to her house so she’ll feel safe, but it turns out that’s a common dodge people use so they can rent part of their homes. Nothing she has said checks out. But hey, she said she knew him back then and it appears she did. So when she says he tried to rape her, we should just go ahead and believe her...right? DUMBEST....ARGUMENT...EVER....

They’re completely clueless. It’s frankly hilarious.

Replacing Scalia with Gorsuch was only controversial because of the way the Garland nomination was handled. It was trading one comservative for another. Replacing Kennedy with Kavanaugh is a game-changer. Suddenly a bunch if 5-4 decisions liberals love, on everything from gay marriage to abortion to gerrymandering were in potential danger. The Dems were willing to go to the mattresses to prevent that.

Her attorneys, one of whom is a fervent anti-Trump protestor and the other who represented McCabe, only said that in a belated attempt to get entice the FBI into an unnecessary interview. The records had been requested for weeks. If they show what she says they do, why not just turn them over?

Hey, another anti-Trump thread. The other 500 weren’t enough I guess. #SAD

Allegedly. Interesting that she has refused to turn over those notes. So no one is really sure how she recovered this memory or what it consisted of.

It makes perfect sense, as I explained.

It’s corroborating in the same way that if you alleged my dog bit you and I denied it, you could prove I once walked near a dog and claim that corroborated your claim. This is hilarious. The best part is that you seem to think you’re somehow winning this argument.

Gorsuch was replacing Scalia. The Dems weren’t as desperate to prevent that. Kavanaugh replacing Kennedy is a bigger deal. A squishy moderate, especially on hot button social issues, is replaced with a more principled conservative. They were willing to make up sexual assault allegations to try to stop that. Just wait until they try to replace Ginsburg with Comey Barrett. They’ll probably claim she practices witchcraft.

A calendar that shows that he once hung out with some friends and drank some beers? Is that all you’ve got? That’s your corroboration?

Pretty easy to create a controversy. Just find some people with mental issues and get them to make crazy allegations of sexual assault. The precedent has now been set.

What’s embarrassing is watching Trump-hating liberals like you engage in these sorts of histrionics. Ford’s account was simply not credible. Pretending otherwise is based on pure politics.

Some of the same people were listed. Others weren’t. It’s unclear if Ford was at that party. It’s unsurprising that Kavanaugh hung out with his friends...and that he drank with them. Is that corroboration that Ford was probably there and he probably sexually assaulted her? Of course not.

Plenty? You’ve pointed to the fact they seem to have known each other back then. That’s “plenty” of corroborating evidence that he sexually assaulted her? And I’m the one who doesn’t understand what corroborating evidence is?

Yawn. Then highlight some posts and let’s discuss. Otherwise quit whining. You’re embarrassing yourself.

I made clear what my issues are with each of the accusers. Next.

The fact that she seems to have known him in 1982 is what you’re hanging your hat on? Seriously? No back pedaling involved. I’ve been consistent on this.

Lie detector tests are not foolproof, which is why they are not admissible in court. I would never allow a client of mine to take one. Mark Judge submitted a statement under oath and then was interviewed by the FBI. The 100k documents Democrats keep bleating about were almost wholly documents someone else drafted that Kavanaugh then reviewed. List the people who did support Ford’s account. Newsflash...there aren’t any. Unless you’re counting people she finally allegedly told about the event decades later....some “witnesses.”