No, it doesn't. When the over-all outcome is essentially predetermined, you can't then use that outcome to judge effectiveness.
Brett Kavenaugh letter details...
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
No, it doesn't. When the over-all outcome is essentially predetermined, you can't then use that outcome to judge effectiveness.
No...he will still be on the SC voting with the conservative wing. Her BS line of questioning was not effective. Not effective at all.
I didnt forget.
There's a thread on this within the last 3 days with money involved. Look it up.
Again, it was very effective. Look how it got all you righties up in arms talking about it. Look how much ink is being spent on her questioning by the right-wing media.
Keep denying the obvious though if you must.
We are laughing at her for asking bullshit questions that blew up in her face. And laughing at you for thinking it was effective. When it wasn’t effective at all. It did nothing, and everyone outside of the most extreme TDS patients understand it.
So you are no longer predicting gains in the House, just that Republicans will maintain control of the House.
What changed?
No you aren't.
Keep talking about her, attacking her, refusing to give her credit, etc. With every post, you prove my point poke. Reminds me how many on the right reacted to Obama pre-2008.
At least you haven't called her a commie yet. Maybe AC will step in and do that lol.
Last edited:
Give her credit for what? Looking like a dumbass? We're already doing that. If you're expecting us to respond positively to the same idiotic trigger points that you do, you're going to remain disappointed. Even the most reliably left media outlets called Kamala out.
BTW, long time no see. How is our favorite paralegal doing these days?
She came across as a complete idiot except for people who are cheerleading against Trump.
I don't expect you guys to respond positive to anything Harris does. Your expected response though is very telling.
She was questioning a senior federal judge about an anonymous and uncollaberated letter regarding an alledged incident which occurred forty years ago when he was a teenager. It wasn’t a good look for her and a new low for senator conduct in the confirmation process. That is about the only take one can come away from her line of questioning. Precedent matters and we just saw one which I hope we never see again regardless of party.
If Kamala had done anything worthy of praise, I'd have zero issue giving it to her. Her bullshit only resonated with the low information crowd.
I could have. You could have. That’s the problem. This invites anyone to make anonymous claims with zero supporting evidence to smear people for political purposes. Harris unfortunately was more than happy to assist. Bad precedent to set in what has already become a process which turns most Americans off.
Ginsburg had a nice snippet of her dissapppintment of what the process has become and compared it to hers.
How did Harris assist with something Fienstein kept under wraps and didn't allow others on the committee to see?
I'll put $500 against her being President next. I'll even give you odds. Put up $400, win $500.
You said if she did something worthy of praise. Isn't being elected President of the United States worthy of praise? Isn't that a great accomplishment?
She attempted to give an anonymous and unsupported allegation which occurred 40 years ago credibility in a confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice. Feinstein shares blame as well btw. As I said above, doesn’t matter which party is acting like that in the confirmation process. Wrong is wrong regardless of political affiliation.
I'm not predicting she will be President. I used the word "if." 2020 is still way too far off to be making predictions on who will be the nominees or who will be elected. Only prediction I'll make at this point about Harris is that she is going to run for the nomination and will be one of the candidates with a serious shot at either the President or VP nomination.
Care to explain why you backed off your prediction that Republicans would gain seats in the House this November?
I don't recall stating I've backed off of that formally. You'll need to cite my formal announcement of that.
Last edited:
If she does good, of course!
If she follows a radical leftist agenda, she'll be rightly criticized.
Back in June, you posted this:
Recently, you were only willing to lay a bet on this:
Republicans could lose 23 seats in the House and still hold it Why were you only willing to bet on Reps holding and not gaining as you were so sure of back in June?
Sounds like you are backing off your original prediction (Reps gain in the House). If not, are you prepared to bet your original prediction that Reps make gains in the House, $50?
The bet was taken.
Do you make it a habit to believe you can read people's minds.
...
...
...
You're a lefty, of course you do.
You didn't answer the question.
Again, are you willing to bet your original prediction that Republicans make gains in the House? Or do you have to back off that prediction and only bet they hold the House?
Why do liberals like to make up lies about good people?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/3588...&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand
https://www.dailywire.com/news/3588...&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand
My current assessment is that there's a net zero change with a +5/-5 variance.
The trend favors Rs. That is especially true if Dems continue to behave as Booker and Harris did in the Senate hearing. That may play to base, but most non-involved voters don't view that and come away thinking "whew, we need THIS woman to be President, those are some HARD hitting questions!!"
I'm not a fan of how this allegation has been handled, however, simply producing 65 friends of Kavenaugh to defend him doesn't mean her allegation is indeed untrue.
I have no idea if the allegation is true. None of us do. What I find interesting though AC is your firm assertion that it is a lie. How would you even begin to know if it is a lie?
Because they dont possess the willpower not to. They never performed a self-assessment after 2016, embracing the cognitive dissonance of it all, ultimately leading to edification...and, in turn, better policy.
Instead they externalized the reasons for loss. "It wasn't because of who we are, what we believe, or how we behave."
i.e. you are now backing off your original prediction that Republicans will gain in the House.
Will you make a bet on your original prediction that Republicans gain in the House? Maybe even raise the bet to $100 too since you were so sure of it?
But you're a fan of Harris asking open-ended questions whose answers are so broad in scope as to not be answerable without qualification of what is being asked?
If Democrats make gains in November, would you agree that their political assessment of how to respond to 2016 was correct?
I.e. stick to lawyering. Your reading comprehension and mindreading are subpar.
You have no track record here. CUP does.
And believe it or not, as nutty as he is, and as much of an asshole as he can be at times, he's strikes me as a gracious person.
You don't.
Are you that thick-headed?
It's the same play from the same playbook every time. (Okay, maybe they're right about Trump).
Guilty until proven innocent. When this is over, people will act like it never happened.
