Breaking: Kavanaugh accused of participating in several gang rapes

I have seen many liberals talk about Kavanaugh's (or the entire Supreme Court's) "illegitimacy". What does this even mean? Kavanaugh is now 1 of 9 Justices on the USSC. The USSC is still going to issue rulings. Those rulings will still have the full weight of federal law behind them.

Sorry, but nothing has changed other than one Justice was swapped out for another.

 

after 8 years of Obama? You call that "winning"?

 

The Kavanaugh hearings really have backfired spectacularly on liberals. I mentioned this is another thread that I have been tracking 270towin's rolling poll averages. Out of 10 battleground states, and over the past 2 weeks, Republicans have gained ground in 7, lost ground in 2 and stayed the same in 1. 3 states flipped from blue to red (albeit still within the poll's margin of error).

All the Republicans need to do is win 3 of those 10 states to maintain their Senate majority (keeping in mind they only need 50 for a majority due to the VP's tiebreaker).

 

Damn Straight.

GDP growth is up 84%, as Joe Biden would say, that a big fn deal.

Originalist Majority on the Supreme Court for the first time since FDR, an even BIGGER deal.

 

If you're blue collar you had to wonder who she was coming for next after she was done with the coal miners.

 

If your are just "Deplorable" you might get a reeducation camp, but if you are "Irredeemable"????? Holy Fuke!

 

I think Scarborough is right, Kavanaugh's hearings were a disaster for the Democrats. Not only were a variety of presumed Democrat "leaders" identified as contenders for the presidential nomination in 2020, revealed to be witless demagogues in their fatuous commentary, others not likely in the running were clearly identified for their scurrilous machinations impugning a sterling candidate's nomination.

The net effect will depend on one's general views; if you strongly support the MeToo, you probably resent the misuse of your cause and some deterioration of your 'movement's' bona fides; generic Democrats probably were embarrassed by Cory Booker and ashamed of Feinstein; conservatives likely were concerned over the implications flowing from the credence lefties gave to uncorroborated accusations, and pleased at Trump's unhesitant support for his nominee.

We'll see how this impacts voting in about 3 weeks, pundits are all over the place on the "Kavanaugh effect", some see a surging blue tsunami and others the opposite.

 

That is one of the promises kept at the expense of our environment, climate change, and your health in the name of profits and votes.
Smooth move and just another example of Trump's "I don't give a ****" attitude.

 

That makes 2 of you. Drink more beer

 

84%!!!!!! Horseshit.

Try around 4%, not much more than Australia.

 

If GDP was grew 1% last year and grew 2% the following year, you could say the growth increased 100%.
Just another case of "lies, damned lies, and statistics", which is why I don't allow statistics, especially political based statistics, become a major factor upon which my views are formed.

I just unsubscribed from this thread as it's no longer relevant in my opinion, so don't expect a reply if you respond to it.

 

How does one 'unsubscribe from' a Thread?

 

We talking about Hillary ... or Ruthie Ginsberg? Ha! never mind.

 

You sound like a Hillary Coal Miner Hater.

Are you surprised that folks that Democrats express hate and disdain for, don't vote for them?

 

Has absolutely nothing to do with hate, but it has everything to do with Trump's mishandling of our environment. You need to stop making meaningless accusations.

 

Try more reading comprehension and fewer !!!!!!

In Trump's first 5 full quarters, he averaged 2.90% GDP growth.

In Obama's final 5 full quarters he averaged 1.58% GDP growth.

Trump's increased GDP growth by 84%, Silly!

 

Does calling a fourth of the electorate "Irredeemable" and "Deplorable" encourage folks to vote for you?

How about "Bitter Clingers, clinging guns and religion with antipathy toward people who aren't like them"?

Hillary to Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania Coal Miners: "McDonald's is Hiring!"

https://canadafreepress.com/article...kentucky-and-pennsylvania-coal-miners-bmcdona

Vile Contempt for American Citizens, richly returned, by the way!

And as long as these self-righteous hypocrites scoulding are living in mansions and flying in private Jets, I don't want to hear another damn world about my "carbon footprint".

You are really dumb enough to fall for their crap?

 

It has been a while in my life since I was referred to as dumb and that was by someone as clueless as you. Everybody uses verbiage
and only the extreme few on all sides get vile in their remarks. You, of course, being clueless will sink your teeth into it which is to be expected.

 

Apparently, we'll never know.

 

Well, you don't have to Einstein to figure out that if you denigrate whole quadrants of the Electorate that those folks are going to return your dislike and not vote for you, Silly!

But, what I'm really enjoying currently is way the Right is finally fighting back against the smears, the attempts to silence, even the attempts to expel the Right from the Academic square.

PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: Guy with re-enacting business supports Trump on social media. Anti-Trump people inside and outside of school districts launch boycott of his business. Response: A civil rights lawsuit. Looks pretty good to me.

 

It is Trump who denigrates all who oppose his policies and false accusations, and his mob supports this denigration with loud and obnoxious chants. They just don't like it when the opposition fights back. They, if indeed is that is what is happening, have every right to boycott anybody's business. A civil rights suit would be tossed as frivolous no matter how good it looks to you.

 

Actually you DON'T have a right to violate the civil rights of others secured by the First and 14th Amendment (42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights) or to engage in a Conspiracy to violate Civil Rights - 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights, Silly!

 

True. How is boycotting a business considered to be a violation of civil rights? On what planet?

 

They engaged in a conspiracy to violate their 1st and 14th amendment rights. Read it here: A civil rights lawsuit.

42 U.S.C. § 1983, popularly known as "Section 1983," is a federal law that allows lawsuits for violations of constitutional rights.

Section 1983 establishes a cause of action for any person who has been deprived of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States by a person acting under color of state law.

 

I don't know anything about the incident, but how are his constitutional rights being violated? Boycotting is not depriving him of his rights
and what did he do to precipitate this?