Oh...goody...Domer is back.
Yep. And pointing out your massive ignorance. Such low hanging fruit, fruit.
Oh...goody...Domer is back.
Yes, they did. Check the polls and surveys that came out after the hearings. They're all agreed that the majority or plurality found her credible. You are welcome to join the hard-right people who claim she looked like a liar (as we knew they'd claim before she ever opened her mouth), but they're a small minority.
Yes, he is the problem. According to his classmate's recounting of the story, Kavanaugh is the person who escalated a verbal exchange with a physical assault.
No you can't; otherwise you wouldn't keep parroting the same tired bullshit over and over again.
What statement do you think is a lie and what evidence do you see that it isn't true? Be specific, please.
I must be a blithering idiot.![]()

Yes, they did. Check the polls and surveys that came out after the hearings. They're all agreed that the majority or plurality found her credible. You are welcome to join the hard-right people who claim she looked like a liar (as we knew they'd claim before she ever opened her mouth), but they're a small minority.
Yes, he is the problem. According to his classmate's recounting of the story, Kavanaugh is the person who escalated a verbal exchange with a physical assault.
What statement do you think is a lie and what evidence do you see that it isn't true? Be specific, please.
Yep. And pointing out your massive ignorance. Such low hanging fruit, fruit.
Try me. Make an actual argument.

The same polls celebrating Hillary's victory?
If anything Ford looked mentally unstable.
And Kavanaugh's classmates?
Umm, obviously not. The polls regarding the election happened before Ford's testimony. Is what you meant to say something like "the election polls weren't exactly accurate, so I don't believe these polls either?" If so, ask yourself by how much the election polls missed.
The answer to that question is that they missed by about 1.2 points, on average:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...rump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
So, if you want to argue that these polls about how credible Ford seemed were also off by something in the magnitude of 1.2 points, that's quite possible. For example, a YouGov survey said that 30% of people who watched the testimony thought that Ford "probably" or "definitely" lied. So, building in plus or minus 1.2 points, we'd be talking about somewhere in the 28.8%-31.2% range. Either way, that's well under a third of people. Those who say they thought she sounded like a liar -- like the right-wingers here claim they think -- are in a distinct minority of less than a third, even if we assume the polls missed by as much as the 2016 presidential polling missed.
How so? I thought she looked remarkable self-possessed. She didn't yell, she didn't attack her questioners for daring to question her, she didn't weep about weird trivia like personal calendars, she didn't indulge in strange paranoid fantasies about the revenge of retired political figures against her, etc. That was all Kavanaugh. He came across as a total lunatic. She came across as a fairly level-headed woman with a trauma in her past.
I see we have a reader who doesn't know how apostrophes work. It was "classmate's," not "classmates."
No, what I meant to say is I think, after talking to you, that you're a fucking idiot.
Then why did you, instead, ask whether they were the same polls celebrating Hillary's victory? That seems like an awfully weird way to tell someone that you think she's a fucking idiot. Were you suffering a stroke at the time? Some sort of aphasia?
Ha ha ha...I knew it! I knew you'd do it. You couldn't help yourself. You fucktards are as predictable as the sunrise.
Only when politically expedient. After all, Obama wrote about his own cocaine use. That's straight from the Marxist's mouth, not 36 year old heresay.![]()
.Obviously not. The left is generally OK with such youthful indiscretions. However, I suspect you're thinking in terms of Kavanaugh. What the left objects to isn't that he had a few beers when he was younger -- nor even that he willfully broke the law to drink while underage, nor that he sometimes drank to such excess as to become ill. It's the evidence that he was a problem drinker, who is alleged to have committed repeated acts of serious sexual misconduct while drunk, as well as other violent acts. It's also that he was dishonest and evasive when asked about these things during the hearings.
Nope. I write off the cocksucker who lies about it under oath.
No you can't; otherwise you wouldn't keep parroting the same tired bullshit over and over again.
