Why the Left Is Consumed With Hate

[TBoneTX 46,041]

I think that the FBI should investigate the leak of CBF's letter by Feinstein or her people, and, while they're at it, investigate why she had a Chinese spy in her office for 20 years.

[Póg mo 1,749]

13 hours ago, Satisfied said:

No you did not.  You made it sound as if this won’t hurt Kavanaugh if he is innocent, which is pure poppycock.  His character will never be intact again.

 

He certainly won't be able to claim impartiality, not after his DT orchestrated testimony. A supreme Court Justice is supposed to be above politics, not with Kavanaugh it ain't. 

 

13 hours ago, Satisfied said:

I ask again... how would YOU feel, if YOU were accused of wrongdoing, and knew you were not guilty, but the media/press painted you out to be a bad guy?  You would suffer, your family would suffer, and your career would suffer, because there is likely NO WAY you can prove your innocence.

 

And what if he is guilty? Should his career suffer then? Or should we blame the women and pretend that she deserved to be a victim? Kavanaugh claimed that he is a virgin, and the devils triangle is a drinking game, he apparently made up. 

13 hours ago, Satisfied said:

 

Even though you refuse to give a straight answer, I know it would upset me to no end, having my reputation tarnished and my family treated poorly and threatened.  

I'm sure anyone would, but to my knowledge successful people do not wait thirty years, just trash someone's character. Ford's testimony was very believable, and for women to go decades without reporting such a crime isn't that uncommon. Ford didn't want the attention, and could have just blackmailed kavanaugh if money was her motivation. Nope, she got in front the world to tell a story about what happened to her, with the full knowledge that her character would be attacked, and powerfuo people would try to dismiss everything as just the story from a drunken floosie.  A lesser women would have said nothing, and pretended nothing ever happened.  An unscrupulous women would have just flat out blackmailed Kavanaugh, and asked that the current ocupant of the white house use one of his slush fund accounts to buy her off. She didn't do those things. That to me, shows character, that you just can't put a dollar value on.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

 

He certainly won't be able to claim impartiality, not after his DT orchestrated testimony. A supreme Court Justice is supposed to be above politics, not with Kavanaugh it ain't. 

 

And what if he is guilty? Should his career suffer then? Or should we blame the women and pretend that she deserved to be a victim? Kavanaugh claimed that he is a virgin, and the devils triangle is a drinking game, he apparently made up. 

I'm sure anyone would, but to my knowledge successful people do not wait thirty years, just trash someone's character. Ford's testimony was very believable, and for women to go decades without reporting such a crime isn't that uncommon. Ford didn't want the attention, and could have just blackmailed kavanaugh if money was her motivation. Nope, she got in front the world to tell a story about what happened to her, with the full knowledge that her character would be attacked, and powerfuo people would try to dismiss everything as just the story from a drunken floosie.  A lesser women would have said nothing, and pretended nothing ever happened.  An unscrupulous women would have just flat out blackmailed Kavanaugh, and asked that the current ocupant of the white house use one of his slush fund accounts to buy her off. She didn't do those things. That to me, shows character, that you just can't put a dollar value on.

You must have watched a completely different hearing than I did.  She had more credibility until she appeared in public and started talking.

[Póg mo 1,749]

24 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

You must have watched a completely different hearing than I did.  She had more credibility until she appeared in public and started talking.

Yes, I believe we must have. Even fox news hosts thought she sounded credible, and a disaster for Republicans. I suppose DT has told people what to think, so little point in trying to convince them otherwise.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

21 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

Yes, I believe we must have. Even fox news hosts thought she sounded credible, and a disaster for Republicans. I suppose DT has told people what to think, so little point in trying to convince them otherwise.

Disaster for the Republicans? Only from the standpoint of Feinstein and her withholding this stunt for 61 days.  

 

Trump has never told me what to think, I'm smart enough to see thing for the way they are without outside assistance.

[jg121783 3,921]

1 hour ago, Póg mo said:

Yes, I believe we must have. Even fox news hosts thought she sounded credible, and a disaster for Republicans. I suppose DT has told people what to think, so little point in trying to convince them otherwise.

Are you kidding me? She sounded like she was coached on what to say and half of what she said has been proven to be false.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

19 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Are you kidding me? She sounded like she was coached on what to say and half of what she said has been proven to be false.

It's so transparent even a kid could see thru it!

 

[Póg mo 1,749]

I miss the old days when right-wingers could at least think for themselves. Now it's just listen and repeat. So sad.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, Póg mo said:

I miss the old days when right-wingers could at least think for themselves. Now it's just listen and repeat. So sad.

 

    It's kind of sad, millions of years of human evolution, and we end up at a point where internet meme's have taken over so many of the higher brain functions. Darwin would be crushed.

 

[Merle 458]

3 hours ago, Póg mo said:

Yes, I believe we must have. Even fox news hosts thought she sounded credible, and a disaster for Republicans. I suppose DT has told people what to think, so little point in trying to convince them otherwise.

In a "he said, she said" situation like this what do you look for to prove who is telling the truth? Depending on you ask they both sounded believeable. Is a person's track record (which is proveable by the way, unlike the question as to whether the assault occured or not) something you look at? Or is your hate for Trump enough to make you believe her side of the story and enough to believe he is lieing? I'm betting on the latter.

[jg121783 3,921]

2 hours ago, Póg mo said:

I miss the old days when right-wingers could at least think for themselves. Now it's just listen and repeat. So sad.

So Fox news and I believe even Trump said she sounded believable but yet when some of us say she didn't sound believable that is somehow not thinking for ourselves? Please explain.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I’ll try to explain it so even an 8-yr old could grasp the concept.

 

About 18 years ago, a man touched my wife inappropriately.  She immediately went to the police, and the guy got his just reward.

 

To this day, she can tell you his name, what his face looked like, how she felt when he touched her, the time of day it happened, where it happened, and she tenses up in a rage when talking about it.

 

THAT’S the difference between inappropriate physical conduct and a fairy tale, IMO.  

[TBoneTX 46,041]

This thought just struck me.

CBF was described as "reluctant to testify."

Feinstein withheld CBF's letter without comment or action until all seemed lost.

Might it be that both realized the flimsiness and unprovability of the allegations?

That's an alternative explanation to why it was never brought up until all else seemed lost.

 

CBF is no dummy.  Might it be that she remained reluctant to testify for the same consistent reasons of flimsiness and unprovability, but the Dems forced her to testify regardless so that they could make a big stink?

[Dashinka 24,754]

17 hours ago, Merle said:

In a "he said, she said" situation like this what do you look for to prove who is telling the truth? Depending on you ask they both sounded believeable. Is a person's track record (which is proveable by the way, unlike the question as to whether the assault occured or not) something you look at? Or is your hate for Trump enough to make you believe her side of the story and enough to believe he is lieing? I'm betting on the latter.

My guess is the latter.

 

7 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

This thought just struck me.

CBF was described as "reluctant to testify."

Feinstein withheld CBF's letter without comment or action until all seemed lost.

Might it be that both realized the flimsiness and unprovability of the allegations?

That's an alternative explanation to why it was never brought up until all else seemed lost.

 

CBF is no dummy.  Might it be that she remained reluctant to testify for the same consistent reasons of flimsiness and unprovability, but the Dems forced her to testify regardless so that they could make a big stink?

You mean the Dems, those politicians that purport to care for the little person, would do something so politically dirty it would hurt the possible victim?  I am shocked.

[jg121783 3,921]

11 hours ago, Satisfied said:

I’ll try to explain it so even an 8-yr old could grasp the concept.

 

About 18 years ago, a man touched my wife inappropriately.  She immediately went to the police, and the guy got his just reward.

 

To this day, she can tell you his name, what his face looked like, how she felt when he touched her, the time of day it happened, where it happened, and she tenses up in a rage when talking about it.

 

THAT’S the difference between inappropriate physical conduct and a fairy tale, IMO.  

Ford claims she can't remember the house she was allegedly assaulted in or how she got there and back home but she remembers clearly who assaulted her. If she was so drunk she can't remember how she got home I'm not buying that she could have remembered accurately much of anything else that happened.