US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[ChaimMoskowitz]

then why are you calling it credible if you agree that its not credible?

I have no reason not to believe her or K. They both seem credible to me. That is why a fair investigation should be done.

[gingyguy]

I have no reason not to believe her or K. They both seem credible to me. That is why a fair investigation should be done.

makes no sense . if you have a credible accusation you investigate to see if its true. but before its credible why do you investigate?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

makes no sense . if you have a credible accusation you investigate to see if its true. but before its credible why do you investigate?

I am saying now and from the beginning that both of them seem credible. You now need an investigation to sort it out.

[Yammer]

They would get crucified by their base.

I don't think so. Also it gives them them legitimacy by the independents.

But this is a matter of opinion

[ChaimMoskowitz]

But this is a matter of opinion

Agree!

[aygart]

That is how you look at it and I don't have a problem with it. The problem is your facts are wrong. There are witnesses and they claim there is corroborating evidence from her doctor and husband. That is why we need a fair investigation to see who is telling the truth.

Who are witnesses other than the two who were named and say it never happened?

[aygart]

A vague story with no corroborating evidence or witnesses is NOT a credible accusation.

There are witnesses who back up K

[avromie7]

That is how you look at it and I don't have a problem with it. The problem is your facts are wrong. There are witnesses and they claim there is corroborating evidence from her doctor and husband. That is why we need a fair investigation to see who is telling the truth.

All 4 "witnesses" said they have no recollection of the party. The story that her Dr has doesn't mention kavanaugh, and she changed the story since then.

She is the only one who hasn't testified, and IMO she will never testify because she knows that she'll be lying under oath, so instead they're trying to delay the nomination as much as possible by coming up with absurd demands.

As of now there is no evidence that this ever happened, and she has a very big incentive to make up such a story, therefore it can not be called a credible allegation no matter how badly you would like there to be a credible accusation against him.

[avromie7]

There are witnesses who back up K

At this point 35 years later with such vague details of time and place, its impossible for anyone to say with certainty that this party never happened, but none of the alleged witnesses have any recollection of it.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

She is the only one who hasn't testified, and IMO she will never testify because she knows that she'll be lying under oath, so instead they're trying to delay the nomination as much as possible by coming up with absurd demands.

I guess FOX news is wrong because they reported a deal was struck to have her testify. If true that blows yours and the rest of the Trumpsters theory out of the water. Can't wait for your response. 

[ChaimMoskowitz]

At this point 35 years later with such vague details of time and place, its impossible for anyone to say with certainty that this party never happened, but none of the alleged witnesses have any recollection of it.

K said he was never at such a party. Lets see if that holds up under examination. IMHO we will find out he was a typical frat kid that been to many on these parties.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Who are witnesses other than the two who were named and say it never happened?

Everyone can see right through your BS and dishonesty. You will see the same post over and over until you answer.

Only because you decided that any discussion of the parts that you don't want discuss means that feel what fits your biases to have them saying. Your biases are preventing you from even knowing what people are really saying. That is how biased you are.

I know what they are saying. They are blaming the D's for this whole mess. They are saying K is afraid of a fair investigation because it will derail/kill his nomination. Am I missing anything?

You are missing more than you are getting. You need to own up to your biases so you can see past them.

What am I missing?

You will not get it until you own up to your biases. Everything he's been very explicit but your biases are pending you from seeing it.

What am I missing?

[aygart]

I don't think you would want to answer. This is your typical tactic to avoid owning up. You find some stupidity that would mean rewriting everything written until this point which you had already twisted into a pretzel and find some question to say that you are ignoring me until I answer to your satisfaction.

Everyone can see right through your BS and dishonesty. You will see the same post over and over until you answer.

[aygart]

K said he was never at such a party. Lets see if that holds up under examination. IMHO we will find out he was a typical frat kid that been to many on these parties.

He did not say such a party. He said a party as the one described by her. Tremendous difference but I would expect you to be able to see that.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I don't think you would want to answer. This is your typical tactic to avoid owning up. You find some stupidity that would mean rewriting everything written until this point which you had already twisted into a pretzel and find some question to say that you are ignoring me until I answer to your satisfaction.

Everyone can see right through your BS and dishonesty. You will see the same post over and over until you answer.

Only because you decided that any discussion of the parts that you don't want discuss means that feel what fits your biases to have them saying. Your biases are preventing you from even knowing what people are really saying. That is how biased you are.

I know what they are saying. They are blaming the D's for this whole mess. They are saying K is afraid of a fair investigation because it will derail/kill his nomination. Am I missing anything?

You are missing more than you are getting. You need to own up to your biases so you can see past them.

What am I missing?

You will not get it until you own up to your biases. Everything he's been very explicit but your biases are pending you from seeing it.

What am I missing?

[avromie7]

I guess FOX news is wrong because they reported a deal was struck to have her testify. If true that blows yours and the rest of the Trumpsters theory out of the water. Can't wait for your response. 

I'll believe it after she actually testifies.

K said he was never at such a party. Lets see if that holds up under examination. IMHO we will find out he was a typical frat kid that been to many on these parties.

Where do you see that he said he's never been at such a party?

Everyone can see right through your BS and dishonesty. You will see the same post over and over until you answer.

It's clear to everyone else around here that you are extremely biased, your claim of leaving politics at the door notwithstanding.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

It's clear to everyone else around here that you are extremely biased, your claim of leaving politics at the door notwithstanding.

Then you answer the simple question for him since he won't.
ETA: While you are at it show me one post where I said I didn't believe K.

[avromie7]

While you are at it show me one post where I said I didn't believe K.

No one ever said you don't believe him.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I know what they are saying. They are blaming the D's for this whole mess. They are saying K is afraid of a fair investigation because it will derail/kill his nomination. Am I missing anything?

I will even add they don't believe the accuser and believe the accused.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

So I believe him and that shows I have bias? Care to explain?

It's clear to everyone else around here that you are extremely biased, your claim of leaving politics at the door notwithstanding.