I disagree with this. Plenty of people voted for Hilary while they may not have against a different republican as they saw her as the lesser of two evils. Just as many people voted for trump when they might not have against a different democrat. Voting for someone doesn't mean you agree with everything they've ever done. the world and politics aren't so black and white you can dislike things from both parties and when you only have two real choices you gotta vote for one of them.
Also people may find it much easier to forgive someone for defending a rapist as part of their job as a laywer than forgiving a rapist for being a rapist.
what Hilary defends and stands for is enough to make anyone with a sane mind not vote for her, now if you think trump is too evil., you could have staid home or voted for a third party, you do have more then republian and democrat you know. I would never have voted for hilary or trump
and as Bozette said, their is a difference between doing it for a job, and wanting to do it and laughing about it after the fact. Hilary's behavior towards the victim, imo was just as bad as the rapist, considering how she told the girl she was fantasizing about it, and that she wanted it. DISGUSTING!!! i don;t know how anyone could vote for that, knowingly that of what she did, and this is only a sliver of the evil this woman has done.
their is also this pesky little law that says INNOCENT TIL PROVEN GUILTY, since their was no evidence to substanciate any claims against Kavenaugh, he is in fact INNOCENT of these claims, and until he is proven in court by a judge that he is guilty he will remain innocent.
like I said if you can;t vote for trump, democrats aren;t the only other option. id rather vote with my conscience and have evil win, then to vote for "lesser of two evils" and knowing that i contributed to evil winning
Give it a few years and there will be instant replay for all interested parties to review. Yet I would lay money down that the hateful disagreements won't come to an end. Simply because it's not about right and wrong. It's about what you want and getting your way at any cost. JMHO
Most people I talk to are not "angry" at Kavanaugh, they think:
1) He is unfit for a lifetime appointment to SCoTUS, or that
2) The Republicans are applying a double standard by insisting on a vote before the election
He was not accused of rape.
I have laughed when I was uncomfortable recounting a bad decision. Just because someone laughs doesn't mean they find something funny, sometimes it is a defensive mechanism to cover embarrassment.
Personally I see two very big red flags in Kavanaugh; His demeanor while answering his accuser, and his overt disdain of non-republicans which he doesn't even try to hide. To me, those two issues alone should be enough to derail his nomination.
The fact that many people thought Hillary or Donald were unfit for office only shows that in a democracy we each get to have opinions. It is only sad when we feel the need to gaslight a debate rather than actually defending the opinion we posit.
The bottom line is - not winning a seat on SCoTUS is not a punishment, it is a lack of reward. Kavanaugh will not go to jail, he will not lose his current job or his money or his freedom, he would only "not" get a job. Because this is such an important role in our society I don't feel that it is possible to be overly cautious. Surely there are other nominees that our President could proffer.
You left out the fact that he flat out lied or gave non-answers to many of the questions he didn't refuse to answer.
The two things you say most people you talk to are angry about regarding Kavanaugh are invalid.
I mean the people you talk to can think what ever they want, but their reasons are flawed.
People and organizations who actually know say he is EXCEPTIONALLY QUALIFIED: Judge Kavanaugh’s extensive experience and credentials make him one of the most exceptionally qualified Supreme Court nominees in history.
And, no double standard was applied or can even be fabricated honestly.
Even CJ has concerns.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Wednesday referred more than a dozen judicial misconduct complaints filed recently against Brett M. Kavanaugh to a federal appeals court in Colorado.
Of course not everyone. There are political hacks in every profession.
Last month, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit asked Roberts to refer the complaints to another appeals court for review. In other words it wasn't his decision - which you cleverly forgot to include so as to promote your agenda.
Gooood progressive! Here's a cookie, go ahead, eat it!
Ok you win, 1 to 2400. A CJ always trumps few thousand JDs. Pun intended.
Don't worry though, Thinker will be here soon with a poem to tag you out for a much needed breather.
Come on Vic! You know when you start crying, it always gets me started!
According to most everything I've read about that rape case, little in the meme is correct. Clinton not only did not "volunteer" to defend the accused, she tried to get out it. I've heard the tape of her interview with the Esquire reporter. Her laughing about the case at all is distasteful enough, without making shit up or twisting facts.
I do not know if the allegations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh are true, and am not personally angry at him, but I believe your claim of "hypocrite of massive proportion" towards those who voted for "hilary" to be WAY overblown. I did find his performance at the Senate hearing pretty troubling. I think he came off as extremely belligerent, evasive, petulant and entitled. That along with with his clear contempt for those not representing his party and various other views he has expressed...are the reasons many feel he ought not be confirmed for this lifelong and very important position.
can you show evidence that she tried to get out of it? i have read that she actually said those evil things in defense of the rapist and hate against the victim, all you have is as far as i know your opinion. and her laughing about the case is evidence enough that she is an evil person is it not? if hilary tried to get out doing the job then why the hell would she laugh about it afterwards? sounds like she enjoyed defending the rapist to me.
how is it overblown? if you voted for someone who can be factually proven to have defended a rapist and laughed about it but are against someone who HASN'T EVEN been proven guilty yet (you know INNOCENT til PROVEN guilty), you are in my books a hypocrite of mass proportion
PS why now? why not last year? why hold off until this moment to accuse Kavenaugh? its a smear campaign by the democrats. its nothing new, even nancy Pelosi talked about how they carry out smear campaigns designed to ruin their oppositions lives or chances in political office. i doubt very much the allegations are going to go any further now that he is elected, the mans life is ruined already, he already lost his teaching job, and guilty or not, people will question him and not have the same respect for him.
evidence that this whole ordeal was a smear campaign, why shut it down if the allegations where real? why woul dhim getting the position stop the investigation?
"Evidence"? No, not really. Just what some people have said...who spoke to her back then, and listening to the actual tapes of what she said. As I said previously, I think her chuckling about the case at ALL was tasteless.