Democrats have been playing politics, trying to sink the nomination and delay past the midterms AND Kavanaugh shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. It's not either/or.
Because of a lot of things. Wrote an article about it.https://arcdigital.media/everyones-applying-the-wrong-standard-to-kavanaugh-s-nomination-9b5859209039?source=friends_link&sk=4973bf2f07aec042d2ede336c92a5dca …
-
-
It's not "more likely than not" when you have his sworn testimony against her unsworn testimony, a clear political motivation for lying (which is not to say she's lying but we should take note of possible motivations), no track record of Kavanaugh behaving this way, etc., etc.
-
There's more of a track record now than when I wrote the article.
-
What, the bogus Amy Chua stuff? This is a smear campaign and his critics are grasping at straws. He was not named in the therapists notes. Three other people she mentions say they know nothing about this. The weight of evidence is not as you describe.
-
Oh, you genuinely don't know. Okay, you're about an hour behind the news. There's a second accuser, from college, and a third line of accusation from Michael Avenatti. My argument is we can do better than a nominee clouded by personal integrity questions. Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch
-
Democrats can always create a cloud.
-
But sometimes it's easier for them than others, no?
-
Yeah but this isn't Roy Moore we're talking about.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Do you not find it suspicious that Ford doesn't remember the place or the time, but she is 100 percent sure she knows the perpetrator and that she had only one drink? What is the epistemic worth of 36 year old eyewitness testimony when alcohol has been consumed?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.