US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[aygart]

The facts should you are ignorant because they have done this before.

When? The difference between this and Hill was discussed by Grassley. Also, they made no assessment there.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

When? The difference between this and Hill was discussed by Grassley. Also, they made no assessment there.

Grassley was a complete smoke screen. If something is public or not has zero bearing on the FBI investigating it. We are not looking for an assessment. Just for them to see if they can uncover any facts.

[aygart]

Grassley was a complete smoke screen. If something is public or not has zero bearing on the FBI investigating it. We are not looking for an assessment. Just for them to see if they can uncover any facts.

That is not the only thing he said

[ChaimMoskowitz]

That is not the only thing he said

He said a lot of things but all political. Like I said before check your politics at the door on this one if you want to be fair.

[aygart]

He said a lot of things but all political. Like I said before check your politics at the door on this one if you want to be fair.

Please do so.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Please do so.

I am only the only one here not taking sides. All I keep hearing is K life is being ruined. The man this and the man that. I wonder why that is with all of you taking his side, NOT. 

[aygart]

I am only the only one here not taking sides. All I keep hearing is K life is being ruined. The man this and the man that. I wonder why that is with all of you taking his side, NOT. 

I mentioned nothing of his life being ruined. Keep in mind we are dealing with a case where the only details mentioned by the accuser have been categorically denied by 3 out of 4 participants. There are no other details to even discuss. Her attorney had said publicly that she wanted to testify but is now walking that back once it seems that it won't delay things.

[gingyguy]

I am only the only one here not taking sides. All I keep hearing is K life is being ruined. The man this and the man that. I wonder why that is with all of you taking his side, NOT. 

forget this specific story for a minute.
do you see any  problem with the fact that a ancient story with no witnesses can come out of left field and be accepted  as fact?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

forget this specific story for a minute.
do you see any  problem with the fact that a ancient story with no witnesses can come out of left field and be accepted  as fact?

I am not accepting anything as fact. That is why an investigation is proper and fair thing to do.
I will ask you the same question. If it was you that was being accused wouldn't you want an investigation if the claims were bogus?

[Toasted]

[aygart]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-dennis-prager-comments-wrong/

[aygart]

Credibly accused?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/20/keith-ellison-domestic-violence-accuser-posts-2017-medical-document-identifying-democrat-as-abuser.html

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I mentioned nothing of his life being ruined. Keep in mind we are dealing with a case where the only details mentioned by the accuser have been categorically denied by 3 out of 4 participants. There are no other details to even discuss. Her attorney had said publicly that she wanted to testify but is now walking that back once it seems that it won't delay things.

Who are the 3 out of 4?
If it was you that was being accused wouldn't you want an investigation if the claims were bogus? I know I would.

[aygart]

Who are the 3 out of 4?
If it was you that was being accused wouldn't you want an investigation if the claims were bogus? I know I would.

Kavanaugh, Judge, Smyth

I would want an investigation but also wouldn't want that to be required when it would very likely delay SCOTUS confirmation and put it at risk. When just the investigation being done the way the accuser wants alone means he lost that needs to be taken into account. Heads I win tails you lose is not due process.

[aygart]

Whoa if true.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/20/kavanaugh-confirmation-allegations-rumors-830725

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Kavanaugh, Judge, Smyth

I would want an investigation but also wouldn't want that to be required when it would very likely delay SCOTUS confirmation and put it at risk. When just the investigation being done the way the accuser wants alone means he lost that needs to be taken into account. Heads I win tails you lose is not due process.

Judge is not under oath and refuses to testify. That should tell you something right there. Who is Smyth?

So you are worried an investigation will delay the conformation and put it at risk. Glad you are being honest.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Whoa if true.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/20/kavanaugh-confirmation-allegations-rumors-830725

This is exactly why the FBI should be involved. Give to them and let them present the info to the committee. I am not afraid of the truth are you?

[aygart]

Judge is not under oath and refuses to testify. That should tell you something right there.

The same can be said about Ford as well.

Who is Smyth?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/pj-smyth-brett-kavanaugh/index.html

[gingyguy]

I am not accepting anything as fact. That is why an investigation is proper and fair thing to do.
I will ask you the same question. If it was you that was being accused wouldn't you want an investigation if the claims were bogus?

if i accuse anybody of anything that took place 35 years does it warrant an investigation.
or should we say come back when you have a real story with something to back it up

[aygart]

So you are worried an investigation will delay the conformation and put it at risk. Glad you are being honest.

Yes. I do not feel that an accuser who has provided no details and refused to testify even to staffers at her attorney's office should be allowed to derail the nomination just by waiting to the last minute.