It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No man should ever vote for Democrats again!

page: 21
91
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:21 PM
link   
democrats are scum.... if you are reading this and you are a democrat.... you too are a scum. This has nothing to do with Obama or Trump or anybody who wants to be a judge. My opinion is based on my personal experience in dealing with the democrat party.
If you are not a scum, then you are ignorant and I apologize for calling you a scum.
If you were a democrat in 1860, you were scum.... if you were a democrat in 1960.... you were a scum...
You have a long history of being the scum of America... a title you hold proudly to this day.
You do not fool me with words spoken by a forked tongue... you fool only the ignorant.

They must find it difficult, those who have chosen to take authority as the truth and not truth as the authority




posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: toolgal462
These allegations are not proof of anything. And your repeatedly insisting he is a rapist doesn't make it true.


Maybe we should apply due process rather than sweep them under the rug? What if the women are telling the truth? Don't they deserve justice?



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: toolgal462
These allegations are not proof of anything. And your repeatedly insisting he is a rapist doesn't make it true.


Maybe we should apply due process rather than sweep them under the rug? What if the women are telling the truth? Don't they deserve justice?

The burden of proof is on the accuser, and so far not one of them has offered any sort of proof. In fact, every supposed witness -- every last one of them -- have all said nothing of the sort ever happened. Even Prof. Ford's classmate, who she says was at the party, said over the weekend that she didn't know Kavenaugh and never went to a party with him.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:36 PM
link   
The OP misspelled "Republicans".

They'll defend anyone if it gets them banking deregulation and tax cuts for the corporations and the 1%.

Nazi sympathizers, self offenders, Fifth Columnists, spies, no criminal activity is disqualifying as long as they're for that stuff.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: toolgal462
These allegations are not proof of anything. And your repeatedly insisting he is a rapist doesn't make it true.


Maybe we should apply due process rather than sweep them under the rug? What if the women are telling the truth? Don't they deserve justice?


Yes, they do deserve justice if true but when it turns out there is absolutely no credibility to all of these accusations are you going to accept the nomination or double down on stupid???

I bet most Dems are going to double down on stupid and crazy and call this man a rapist no matter what happens. Just like they do with Justice Clarence Thomas.
edit on 26-9-2018 by toolgal462 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby
The OP misspelled "Republicans".

They'll defend anyone if it gets them banking deregulation and tax cuts for the corporations and the 1%.

Nazi sympathizers, self offenders, Fifth Columnists, spies, no criminal activity is disqualifying as long as they're for that stuff.


STFU with that #. I am on record as stating just yesterday that I voted for Bernie and don't throw stones when your own spelling is infantile at best.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
The burden of proof is on the accuser, and so far not one of them has offered any sort of proof. In fact, every supposed witness -- every last one of them -- have all said nothing of the sort ever happened. Even Prof. Ford's classmate, who she says was at the party, said over the weekend that she didn't know Kavenaugh and never went to a party with him.


Proof isn't typically provided until you goto court. Something that will not happen in this case, because there is no trial here, it is not a legal matter. It is Congress evaluating his qualifications to be a Supreme Court justice.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: toolgal462
Yes, they do deserve justice if true but when it turns out there is absolutely no credibility to all of these accusations are you going to accept the nomination or double down on stupid???


I want to see Democrats fight. Assuming scheduling allows them to do so, I want to see them delay this until after the midterms, and then refuse to bring him to a vote for the next two years claiming that the American people clearly voted against him in the midterms, and we should let a new President after the 2020 elections nominate someone.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: MRinder
If they are going to weaponize rape and every man is assumed guilty why would any man in his right mind ever vote for a Democrat? What's to stop the woman who doesn't get a promotion or an old girlfriend who you broke up with to claim you raped them? Apparently they don't need proof and all their witnesses could say they didn't see it happen, but Democrats would still say you are guilty simply because they expect that every woman who said they were raped are all truthful regardless of evidence or the lack thereof.

What's to protect any man from being Kavanaugh-ed? Never forget Democrats see all men as rapists unless proven otherwise.


So you are FOR rape being acceptable in our society. You really must pond scum.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
What man would continue to buy into the system when it's obvious that they are using our prejudices and animosity against us every chance they get?

Did you know that this whole political circus over the past 2+ years has intentionally been set up to cause as much animosity and outrage as possible? It's one social issue after another, they're pulling out all the stops in this psyop. It's social engineering 101 and you guys are falling the test. The more hate you build up inside of you the better it is for them and the less heat they take directly. They're winning and you guys don't even realize it.

Keep fighting each other though, the real enemy doesn't matter apparently, all that matters is that you prove you are right.

So you r FOR rape Too
More pond scum.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: blueman12
I see so much of this. SO many people praising republicans and forgetting that they are part of the same coin. Two sides of the same coin. The principle of paradox.

So desperate to see Trump as their alt-right king while forgetting all terrible things that republicans did while in power. It's sad. It's like a terrible history lesson.

The lesson is that most will fall to the propoganda of the state and will lose sight of their own indivudal thought. They will substitute their own thought for that of some republican outlet.

It was never about left vs right. Have so many on ATS forgot that? Forgot that these politicians play games while pushing their true agendas through law?

Wake up.


You are in error, The republican are tear apart that systems and departments that make the US respectable.
You are letting the republicans drag you all done to the level of trailer park trash.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: SmilingROB

originally posted by: MRinder
If they are going to weaponize rape and every man is assumed guilty why would any man in his right mind ever vote for a Democrat? What's to stop the woman who doesn't get a promotion or an old girlfriend who you broke up with to claim you raped them? Apparently they don't need proof and all their witnesses could say they didn't see it happen, but Democrats would still say you are guilty simply because they expect that every woman who said they were raped are all truthful regardless of evidence or the lack thereof.

What's to protect any man from being Kavanaugh-ed? Never forget Democrats see all men as rapists unless proven otherwise.


So you are FOR rape being acceptable in our society. You really must pond scum.


No I am not for rape. These women were not raped. They are lying for political purposes because they fear Kavanaugh will vote to overturn Roe vs Wade. That would make abortion illegal and Dems can't live without their abortions. Are you for killing unborn babies?

Also, Kavanaugh wont overturn Roe vs Wade but the dems like to worry themselves sick and think he will.

Each woman accusing him of rape has named certain people they said were there when they were raped and they all have said that it didn't happen. More Democrat lies. Do you like liars?
edit on 26-9-2018 by MRinder because: add info



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IAMNOTYOU

You projected just about everything you said onto my post.

I don't really expect anyone to understand what they're talking about around here anymore, but I am a long-term member and for viritually that entire time have been very clear and on the record that I consider politicians, ALL politicians, psychopathic.

Soo ...


It's okay Bacchus ... just remember that Republicans are the classy, moral and ethical party not to mention Jesus and Family Values ... they just happen to have more sex scandals and confessed crimes than everyone else. It's the Deep State, I tell ya.

Really? Didnt sound like that in youre other post and i dont read someones entire post history before replying, so i can only go by what you said in youre last post, if i dont allready know who you are!

But iam glad we agree that they are all the same



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: AutisticEvo

An "honest fashion"? Refusing to follow Constitutional duties is admirable? McConnnel STATED that it was his intention to deny President Obama his right to appoint a Justice ... and by extension, the right of the American people who voted Mr. Obama in

I know, I know, it's good when your side does it and bad when the other side does ... but the two situations are similar ONLY to the extent that the bottom-line motivations on the part of the Senators is political.



Strawman Argument as predictable as any. and wrong in context as any. I know you didnt do your due diligence in research let me show you your error.

The president is tasked by the Constitution with nominating and appointing new justices “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,” which means that in the event of a vacancy the president considers potential nominees, names one, then the Senate holds a hearing and votes to confirm or reject that nominee.


Mcconnalls reason for this was quoted thus


"The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."


That was the last year of Obamas Term, an Election year. Mcconnells given reason was to prevent last minute political leveraging through opportunism.

It was also backed by the rest of the senate. “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,” therefore there was no wrongdoing as the Majority in the Senate stood by McConnells reason and wanted to wait and let the Next person in office make that call.

McConnell

"I notice my counterpart, Senator Schumer, announced yesterday that their goal was to apparently never fill the Supreme Court vacancy. That’s kind of an expansion of the Biden rule. You recall the Biden rule, in 1992, was the Senate would not confirm a Supreme Court nominee in the middle of a presidential election year, which was my view last year."


That year was when Clinton gained the presidency, this motion mentioned by McConnell was during an election year.
That was also the 102nd United States Congress had a Democratic Majority in the Upper and Lower Legistlative Branch in Congress, Meaning they HAD Undeniable POWER.

So this whole accusation of "its good when we do bad when they do" is only a viewpoint being pushed by you and yours alone. It made sense why they blocked Bush, same reasons used to Block Obama on a Presidential Election year.

so what you failed to understand and anyone who agreed with you Gryph, is that in Both the Original 1992 and 2016 Presidential Election YEAR examples good reason on keeping things reasonable for Future generations,
whereis in 2018, having no relatable excuse that congress would buy, Suddenly they are bringing Stormy 2.0 and decided to push to block using insubstantiated accusations in or to smear slander and shame.
its the same thing the DNC did for 2016, by making wild unproven "trigger" accusations, they hope to destroy the targeted political threat and shame on anyone who dares argue the point or vote against the Party of Pretenders.

this isnt about how the Senate or Council vote come friday.
this is about Democrats making a last ditch desperate and morally reprehensible underhanded attempt to INTERFERE through outside forces and organisations The Legally Observable Process of Voting in a New Supreme Justice and their goal seems to be either to destroy the current nominee or if that fails BLOCK it which they can do if they win back the majority come Nov.

So are you saying because there is nothing illegal that you see going on here it is ok to Politicize ABUSE or inconsistent ACCUSATIONS of ABUSE, so long as there is no law against it, even though it SENDS the MESSAGE TO REAL VICTIMS that the only way you can speak out and expect something done is if it serves a political agenda of others?

I think you are wrong about the Process of Advise and Consent as these last minute "accusations" to DELAY and OBSTRUCT or INFLUENCE the Vote has not been done before and is by no means a part of the process as you seemed to imply in your own choice of words.

Or are you actually trying to convince anyone who doesnt do their own research that Mcconnell and the "SENATES" reasons for blocking Obamas Appointee over what the DEMOCRATS started doing in 1992 as one and the same thing as we are Witnessing with Brett K.?

because my above posts clearly prove you are wrong.

your argument really boils down to confirmation bias of "Because they didnt let Obama Cheat a Rule of the Democratic Senate set up themselves, therefore I will turn a blind eye to this without mentioning the actual History behind Obama being blocked but instead call it a Pot and Kettle situation"
which is Laughable and Naive

its like you think its ok because your memory or research doesnt go back further than Obama, or your being intentionally dense and merely arguing these points of yours with misleading facts on McConnell for no other reason than to mislead the ignorant and derail discussion.

but I understand, sometimes I feel like the only one who actually researches you and some others statements to verify the accuracy of statements.
if the others whom replied to you actually did their due diligence they would find more inaccuracies and flaws possibly intentional and wouldnt need me to jump in and rebuke your twisted half truths

quit while you can still hold water. you cant save your argument when you failed to research the actual history behind the tradition of not allowing Scotus Noms on a POTUS ELECTION YEAR
better luck next thread
edit on 26-9-2018 by AutisticEvo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: AutisticEvo

Thanks for that perfect explanation and I can't wait for Gryphon to attempt a rebuttal. It ought to be pure comedic gold.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


Proof isn't typically provided until you goto court. Something that will not happen in this case, because there is no trial here, it is not a legal matter. It is Congress evaluating his qualifications to be a Supreme Court justice.


False, in order to bring someone to Trial Proof must first be given, evidence at least circumstantial has to be provided.
If there is substantial Evidence of the Physical Nature or Corroborated by eyewitness accounts that match the original accusation then a Criminal Arrest by the Prosecution then would take place, During court hearings the Prosecutor Leads in presenting Evidence to the Judge and or Jury to push for a Conviction.

if there was anything to these allegations at this point ol Brett would already have been Arrested or Indicted.
the fact that the Hearing he agreed to is VOLUNTARY shows that this is nothing more than a smear campaign designed to influence the Senate Vote.


I want to see Democrats fight. Assuming scheduling allows them to do so, I want to see them delay this until after the midterms, and then refuse to bring him to a vote for the next two years claiming that the American people clearly voted against him in the midterms, and we should let a new President after the 2020 elections nominate someone.


So you want to see this circus delay the vote till after the midterms, though you could LOSE all control of the House by that point but in hopes of the "Blue Wave" and also to block it until a "NEW" President is elected in 2020.

so basically you are admitting that you dont mind immoral and corrupt actions so long as your side wins.

Your honesty in this matter is commendable, despite the lack of honor or integrity of the comments themselves...



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: AutisticEvo
False, in order to bring someone to Trial Proof must first be given, evidence at least circumstantial has to be provided.


Evidence yes, but not necessarily proof. Just something that proves it's not entirely fabricated. 20 minutes ago another woman put out an allegation, this time from 1998, and it seems the Senate heard testimony from yet another woman that hasn't made the news cycle yet.

These are independent allegations (well, 5 of the now 6 are). That's enough evidence to begin looking into it. But again, this isn't a court of law there's no trial that's taking place, it's merely the Senate figuring out if this guy has the right moral character to be a Supreme Court justice. At this point we know he has a severe drinking problem, he seems to have a bunch of gambling debts, and he hangs out with rapists for his social circle. Whether or not he is a rapist (I think he is) is pretty much irrelevant at this point. He does not have the right morals to be on the SCOTUS, and he should probably lose his current position.



so basically you are admitting that you dont mind immoral and corrupt actions so long as your side wins.


It's not my side, I'm a non conservative Republican. I want to see Democrats stand up and fight, because worthy opposition makes everyone better in the end. It would outright kill the Tea Party which cannot stand up to scrutiny. When only one side really gets dirty, they'll win. Politics is a blood sport, and that means that for any balance to be maintained all sides need to be absolutely ruthless.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: toolgal462

Heres a Template of what to expect:

1 Denial followed by
2 "so your ok with" Strawman attack that makes it out like im saying something else
3 Vague reference to something unrelated to OP in order to appear intellectual
4 Follow up statement meant to push ATS member onto the defense of their meaning
5 end statement with no real substance outside baiting.

followed by me laughing and not bothering to dignify with a reply unless he comes up with something I didnt know already



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: AutisticEvo
False, in order to bring someone to Trial Proof must first be given, evidence at least circumstantial has to be provided.


Evidence yes, but not necessarily proof. Just something that proves it's not entirely fabricated. 20 minutes ago another woman put out an allegation, this time from 1998, and it seems the Senate heard testimony from yet another woman that hasn't made the news cycle yet.

These are independent allegations (well, 5 of the now 6 are). That's enough evidence to begin looking into it. But again, this isn't a court of law there's no trial that's taking place, it's merely the Senate figuring out if this guy has the right moral character to be a Supreme Court justice. At this point we know he has a severe drinking problem, he seems to have a bunch of gambling debts, and he hangs out with rapists for his social circle. Whether or not he is a rapist (I think he is) is pretty much irrelevant at this point. He does not have the right morals to be on the SCOTUS, and he should probably lose his current position.



so basically you are admitting that you dont mind immoral and corrupt actions so long as your side wins.


It's not my side, I'm a non conservative Republican. I want to see Democrats stand up and fight, because worthy opposition makes everyone better in the end. It would outright kill the Tea Party which cannot stand up to scrutiny. When only one side really gets dirty, they'll win. Politics is a blood sport, and that means that for any balance to be maintained all sides need to be absolutely ruthless.


Sure, that is great. So you have to be a giant scumbag with a steel hide to even venture into politics or else you can expect to have your life destroyed by your opposition.

I can't believe you posted this garbage. You should be ashamed. Just because you want to live under a corrupt political regime doesn't mean the rest of us want to live with that sort of government.

What you posted is why we don't have a better class of people who are elected to our government. ONly vipers can withstand the other vipers so good people need not apply. SAD, really sad.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


These are independent allegations (well, 5 of the now 6 are). That's enough evidence to begin looking into it.


To this statement I wholeheartedly agree. despite the obviously political reasoning and timing behind these accusations I believe that this matter should be investigated thoroughly.
However I disagree with delaying the vote over this.
if after he is or is not voted in proof of allegations is found substantial enough to warrant arrest or indictment, then let them do so.
however if it is found insubstantiated and falsified I believe there should be Judicial Action against the Accuser(s) for making ILLEGALLY "False Accusations and Report" of a Crime which in many states is considered a felony offense.

but thank you for clearing up the Fight comment and what you meant, I do agree a good dirty fight might be whats needed on both sides to clear up the tension in our Country.
ther only issue is the MSM is majority left leaning, so we are seeing more bias against Brett than For and as far as I see it the DEMS are fighting as dirty as they can and have been for at least the last year



new topics

top topics



 
91
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join