Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Kavanaugh hearing

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How the left perpetrates fraud - so many frauds... These people are so consistent in their lies their frauds, we should all know what to expect of them.

    You want to vote for people like this ?

    And they'll accuse you of being "hateful" if you reject the lies they're telling & selling.

    Learn from this !

    Ford isn't the first leftist woman to slander someone and try to ruin them. This is a regular occurrence with these people.

    These people are evil.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Anita Hill case showed that fraud does pay.

    In October 1991, future Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano ushered in a bold new era in American political history. At the time a Democratic activist and an attorney in private practice, Napolitano was, for no good reason, monitoring the preliminary interview by Senate staffers of Susan Hoerchner. A California administrative judge, Hoerchner was the prime mover in the outing of Napolitanos client, Anita Hill.

    OK. Were you living in Washington at the time you two had this phone conversation? the staff attorney asked Hoerchner. The attorney was referring to the conversation during which Hill told Hoerchner that her boss had sexually harassed her on the job.

    Yes, said Hoerchner.

    So it was prior to September of 1981? asked the staffer.

    Oh, I see what youre saying, said Hoerchner.


    At this point, although she had no official role in the proceedings, Napolitano objected and called for a recess. Hoerchner had just subverted the timeline on which the case against Clarence Thomas rested.

    I began working with Clarence Thomas in the early fall of 1981, Hill had told the Judiciary Committee. Early on, our working relationship was positive. By Hills account, Thomas did not begin to pester her for roughly three months. At the earliest that would have been December 1981, three months after Hoerchner left for California, three months after she and Hoerchner stopped communicating.

    Instead of calling the defamation plot off, Napolitano and Hoerchner -- and eventually Hill -- conspired to cover it up. After conferring with Napolitano, Hoerchner had a convenient change of memory. Now it was time for the friendly Democratic counsel to ask, When you had the initial phone conversation with Anita Hill and she spoke for the first time about sexual harassment, do you recall where you were living -- what city? Answered Hoerchner, I dont know for sure.

    Prodded by her allies on the left, the initially reluctant Hill proceeded to slander Clarence Thomas before the world. This calculation represented a dark turn in progressive history. Ever since the Soviet Comintern decided to make martyrs out of Sacco and Vanzetti more than sixty years prior, leftists had made a practice of declaring the guilty innocent. Now they and their media allies were prepared to declare the innocent guilty and, if need be, imprison them to prove their point. The lefts brief Atticus Finch phase was over.

    Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs, Leonard Peltier, Mumia-Abu Jamal, Hurricane Carter -- guilty to a man, but now history. Clarence Thomas, Duke Lacrosse, George Zimmerman, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, Officer Darren Wilson, Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump -- innocent, and now the future. There had been cases of the left punishing the innocent before Thomas, and many since, but the Thomas case was arguably the first in which the combined forces of the left knowingly defamed an innocent man on the main stage.

    Although progressives have all but criminalized the skewering of their many sacred cows -- Islam, climate change, illegal aliens, LGBT, the poor -- no cows in their pantheon are as sacred as race and sex. They hit Thomas on sex. In 2006, they hit the Duke lacrosse team on the deadly trifecta of sex, race, and class.

    The lefts Oh, I see moment should have come less than a month after the incident. The DNA test results came back, and they failed to connect any member of the lacrosse team to Crystal Mangum, the black stripper who had accused three of the players of rape. This hard evidence of the players innocence deterred none of their accusers in academia and few in the media.

    The New York Times assumed the leadership of the media mob. Times columnist Selena Roberts spoke for many when she described the team as a group of privileged players of fine pedigree entangled in a night that threatens to belie their social standing as human beings.

    Even as the case against the three accused players eroded, the Times stubbornly refused to acknowledge the damage. In August 2006, nearly six months after the incident, the Times ran a lengthy front-page story ("Files From Duke Rape Case Give Details but No Answers") about this tangled American opera of race, sex, and privilege that tried to shore up the case against the accused. It was too late. Within hours of its appearance online, bloggers had waded through the errors and omissions of the article and deconstructed it to its preposterous core.

    As it turned out, there was no case. District Attorney Mike Nifong, an ambitious Democrat, built his prosecution of the three accused players on a foundation of suppressed evidence and outright lies. A year after the incident, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Hooper dropped all charges against the three players, declared them innocent, and described them as victims of a "tragic rush to accuse."

    The media learned little in the process, and campus progressives learned nothing, certainly not with the issues of sex and class at play. In 2014, Rolling Stone published a lengthy article about the gang rape of a young woman at University of Virginia fraternity house Phi Kappa Psi. Within days of the articles publication, all Greek activities had been suspended on campus, the fraternity house was vandalized, and protesters were staging fevered rallies and marches. At first, only conservative bloggers challenged the story and the way it was reported. Within weeks, however, the whole grotesque charade unraveled.

    In February 2012, the medias Oh, I see moment should have come no more than a day after the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. The only solid eyewitness, Jon Good, spoke to the police immediately after the shooting.

    So I open my door. It was a black man with a black hoodie on top of the other, either a white guy or now I found out I think it was a Hispanic guy with a red sweatshirt on the ground yelling out help! And I tried to tell them, get out of here, you know, stop or whatever, and then one guy on top in the black hoodie was pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA [mixed martial arts]-style.

    The day after the incident Good spoke to a local TV reporter and repeated the facts of the case for the national media to hear. There was never any mystery. Anyone who cared to know knew that it was Zimmerman who was attacked, Zimmerman who was crying out for help, Zimmerman who was beaten nearly to unconsciousness by a troubled young man nearly half a foot taller than he was.

    The media had no interest in any of this. As NBCs legal analyst Lisa Bloom tells the story in her book, Suspicion Nation, Zimmerman confronts Martin. He grabs or shoves him. A frightened Martin punches Zimmerman. A tussle ensues. It is not particularly significant who is on top. Zimmerman pulls the gun, points it at Martin, and continues his profane insulting rant for forty seconds during which time Martin screams aaah in fear. An angry, panicky Zimmerman shoots and kills Martin.

    To sustain this nonsense, Bloom failed to mention Goods interviews or even Goods trial testimony that assured the not guilty verdict. CNNs coverage was even more corrupt than NBCs, and ABCs was the worst of them all. No one in the major media acknowledged that Zimmerman was a civil rights activist and Obama supporter. Bloom did not even mention he was Hispanic. Scarier still, President Barack Obama endorsed this fiction and encouraged the activists who launched the Black Lives Matter movement on the back of it.

    Like many on the left, Obama had little conscience about sacrificing those who served no useful purpose. Months after declaring the conspicuously guilty Trayvon his spiritual son, Obama covered his tracks in the Benghazi mess by allowing his Justice Department to imprison an innocent American citizen. Nakoula Bassely Nakoulas crime was to post his video, The Innocence of Muslims, on the Internet. The major media offered not a word of protest.

    Two years later the Black Lives Matter movement seized on a new media-fueled lie out of Missouri, namely that Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed gentle giant Michael Brown while Brown was trying to surrender. Hands up, dont shoot became an unholy mantra on the left, one that was believed most fervently and famously by NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick.

    Fortunately for Wilson, St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch relied not on the media but on the evidence, and the evidence cleared Wilson. The evidence also cleared George Zimmerman, the Duke lacrosse players, and the UVA frat boys. Clarence Thomas was confirmed as an associate justice of the Supreme Court, and, if nothing else, Nakoula was eventually released from his Texas prison.

    Those who think a series of defeats like this would discourage the left fail to understand its end game. Given their control of academia and the media, progressives are confident the majority of Americans will see these seeming losses as further indictments of the American system --No justice, no peace. Hip to this strategy, Sen. Richard Danang Dick Blumenthal asked Kavanaugh at the hearing, Do you believe Anita Hill? Blumenthal hoped to trap Kavanaugh with a fiction that for the left had hardened into inarguable fact.

    Kavanaugh had no time to answer, and it was just as well. The left had long ago canonized Ms. Hill. The sanctification achieved momentum with the publication of the 1994 bestseller, Strange Justice. Just as Lisa Bloom erased the Jon Good testimony, authors Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson erased Susan Hoerchners revealing testimony before the Senate committee. Mayer showed she was still capable of media malpractice weeks ago when she and Ronan Farrow tried to bust Kavanaugh for exposing himself while at Yale.

    .... A law professor at lowly Oral Roberts University at the time of the hearings, Hill now teaches at Brandeis, commands a $30,000-50,000 speaking fee, and can barely keep up with the honors that continue to come her way.

    It seems altogether likely that Christine Blasey Ford followed the Hill model: conjure up the details of some real-life drama, give the hated justice-to-be a leading role, surrender your fate to the activists who are prodding you forward, and eventually cash in.

    True, Ford did not succeed in stopping Kavanaugh, but she will not have to live in shame as Thomas has and Kavanaugh will, or live in the shadows the way Wilson and Zimmerman and Nakoula still do. No doubt too her speaking fees will be considerably higher than those of St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch. The Democrats rewarded McCullochs commitment to justice by voting him out in their August primary.

    That said, Ford will be no Anita Hill. Whether an active participant or an unwitting one, Ford will pay some price for her role in this sloppy, self-destructive plot to stop Kavanaugh. When previous plots had failed, there was no real consequence. Over time, the media "corrected" the record. A month before the mid-terms, there is not time enough.

    These incidents, especially the deep state assault on Kavanaugh, are all prelude to great defamation project of our time: the Russian collusion hoax. When the American people have their Oh, I see moment on this scam, Democrats and their media allies may never recover.



    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...dark_turn.html

    ?


    • JUSTICE Kavanaugh!

      I have said for quite some time that there are some areas which the GOP establishment should take heed of Trump. First and foremost is learning to fight the fights, and not to allow the left and the editorial board of the NYT (yes, yes, redundant I know) set the parameters of the battlefield. Trump has repeatedly shown that the GOP can successfully wage battle on issues that we have been told are certain losers. Granted, Trump's manner of fighting those battles are often times less than optimal, but successful. I heard several "never-Trumpers" admit over the weekend that Trump was absolutely right to stick by Kavanaugh, and also that they doubted that any of the also-rans from the primaries would have had the temerity to stick by him.

      Just imagine if a more eloquent, knowledgeable, positive and optimistic conservative were to fight the good fight on these issues (in a way that was more likely to win over Independents rather than turn them off). Conservatives have good arguments to make on immigration, taxes, Obamacare. Fighting these fights would also mean taking on the GOP inside-the-beltway, entrenched establishment, but a good leader could do that.

      The party can fight the fights Trump has proven can effectively be fought, without coming across as bafoonish gasbags.

      Last edited by Marcus1124; 1 week ago.

      ?


      • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
        JUSTICE Kavanaugh!

        I have said for quite some time that there are some areas which the GOP establishment should take heed of Trump. First and foremost is learning to fight the fights, and not to allow the left and the editorial board of the NYT (yes, yes, redundant I know) set the parameters of the battlefield. Trump has repeatedly shown that the GOP can successfully wage battle on issues that we have been told are certain losers. Granted, Trump's manner of fighting those battles are often times less than optimal, but successful. I heard several "never-Trumpers" admit over the weekend that Trump was absolutely right to stick by Kavanaugh, and also that they doubted that any of the also-rans from the primaries would have had the temerity to stick by him.

        Just imagine if a more eloquent, knowledgeable, positive and optimistic conservative were to fight the good fight on these issues (in a way that was more likely to win over Independents rather than turn them off). Conservatives have good arguments to make on immigration, taxes, Obamacare. Fighting these fights would also mean taking on the GOP inside-the-beltway, entrenched establishment, but a good leader could do that.

        The party can fight the fights Trump has proven can effectively be fought, without coming across as bafoonish gasbags.
        Which, in extreme desperation, certain angry liberals are going to call president Trump.

        As he keeps smashing them because he's not afraid to speak of reality LOL

        They're going to call him names. Their going to sweat, gnash their teeth & cry - always making asses of themselves - and keep right on losing.

        They can't control themselves

        America has had enough of their idiocy

        ?


        • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
          JUSTICE Kavanaugh!

          I have said for quite some time that there are some areas which the GOP establishment should take heed of Trump. First and foremost is learning to fight the fights, and not to allow the left and the editorial board of the NYT (yes, yes, redundant I know) set the parameters of the battlefield. Trump has repeatedly shown that the GOP can successfully wage battle on issues that we have been told are certain losers. Granted, Trump's manner of fighting those battles are often times less than optimal, but successful. I heard several "never-Trumpers" admit over the weekend that Trump was absolutely right to stick by Kavanaugh, and also that they doubted that any of the also-rans from the primaries would have had the temerity to stick by him.

          Just imagine if a more eloquent, knowledgeable, positive and optimistic conservative were to fight the good fight on these issues (in a way that was more likely to win over Independents rather than turn them off). Conservatives have good arguments to make on immigration, taxes, Obamacare. Fighting these fights would also mean taking on the GOP inside-the-beltway, entrenched establishment, but a good leader could do that.

          The party can fight the fights Trump has proven can effectively be fought, without coming across as bafoonish gasbags.
          I know they are there. Presumably beaten down by elite GOP establishment types that really should get out of the way (but won't)...

          These bafoonish gasbags fought tooth and nail to prevent a lot of those issues when the democrats had control ... so I am confounded as to why they have backed away now that they have control.

          Back on topic: Those of us who saw this Kavanaugh confirmation as an outrageous circus of pomposity haven't seen anything yet. If Ginsberg retires or dies ... we ain't seen nothing yet.

          ?


          • Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

            I know they are there. Presumably beaten down by elite GOP establishment types that really should get out of the way (but won't)...

            These bafoonish gasbags fought tooth and nail to prevent a lot of those issues when the democrats had control ... so I am confounded as to why they have backed away now that they have control.

            Back on topic: Those of us who saw this Kavanaugh confirmation as an outrageous circus of pomposity haven't seen anything yet. If Ginsberg retires or dies ... we ain't seen nothing yet.
            They're going to have to figure out a new fraud. This one no longer works.

            As I've been saying, they pulled the same garbage on Roy Moore. Were successful at it.

            This time it failed them.

            -------------------------------------------------------------------------

            It's worth reminding everyone that if the weak-kneed Republicans had rallied behind Judge Roy Moore as they did around Judge Kavanaugh, they would have gone into this battle with a 52-48 margin in the Senate, and would have had an able and ardent defender of an originalist judicial philosophy. Judge Moore, like Judge Kavanaugh, was attacked with utterly unsubstantiated and decades-old allegations from women who could not provide one single corroborating witness or piece of evidence to support their wild and unhinged charges. In fact, in his case, there was more evidence against the allegations thrown at him than there is evidence against the allegations that were thrown at Judge Kavanaugh. Judge Moore was as innocent of the charges against him as Judge Kavanaugh is of the charges against him.

            ...

            https://www.onenewsnow.com/perspecti...ics-since-wwii


            ================================================== ========================

            Dr. Tom Coburn, pointed out last week, [T]here is not her truth or his truth. There is only the truth. Either Justice Kavanaugh assaulted Dr. Ford, or he did not. It is wrong to choose sides based upon which narrative fits better with our own preferred political outcome.

            ..the sad fact that even otherwise reasonable people can be successfully bullied into submission by such tactics.

            ...an alarming number of responses to the allegations against Kavanaugh exposed the depth and persistence of our tribalist instincts. We want to classify people, and then label them based upon their class rather than their individual merits.

            For instance, just consider the title of a recent Washington Post article by sociologist Shamus Khan: Kavanaugh is lying. His upbringing explains why. The appalling thesis of the article was that because Brett Kavanaugh is from a wealthy family, we should all assume that he is a liar.

            This proposition should shock our collective conscience not only because we believe in due process, but also because we believe that every person is more than the sum of his or her race, gender, ethnicity, education and socio-economic status. Yet we have been shamefully quick to abandon our noble conviction that justice requires us to evaluate a man according to the content of his character not the content of his parents bank account.

            Justice Kavanaughs confirmation proceedings have been a sad reflection of our politics and our culture. Lets at least learn our lessons and purpose to do better.



            https://www.wnd.com/2018/10/kavanaug...gly-realities/

            ?


            • and, yet, we had proof ... solid evidence ... that Drunkard Ted left that girl in his car to die, and got nothing.

              ?


              • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                They're going to have to figure out a new fraud. This one no longer works.

                As I've been saying, they pulled the same garbage on Roy Moore. Were successful at it.

                This time it failed them.

                -------------------------------------------------------------------------

                It's worth reminding everyone that if the weak-kneed Republicans had rallied behind Judge Roy Moore as they did around Judge Kavanaugh, they would have gone into this battle with a 52-48 margin in the Senate, and would have had an able and ardent defender of an originalist judicial philosophy. Judge Moore, like Judge Kavanaugh, was attacked with utterly unsubstantiated and decades-old allegations from women who could not provide one single corroborating witness or piece of evidence to support their wild and unhinged charges. In fact, in his case, there was more evidence against the allegations thrown at him than there is evidence against the allegations that were thrown at Judge Kavanaugh. Judge Moore was as innocent of the charges against him as Judge Kavanaugh is of the charges against him.

                ...

                https://www.onenewsnow.com/perspecti...ics-since-wwii


                ================================================== ========================

                Dr. Tom Coburn, pointed out last week, [T]here is not her truth or his truth. There is only the truth. Either Justice Kavanaugh assaulted Dr. Ford, or he did not. It is wrong to choose sides based upon which narrative fits better with our own preferred political outcome.

                ..the sad fact that even otherwise reasonable people can be successfully bullied into submission by such tactics.

                ...an alarming number of responses to the allegations against Kavanaugh exposed the depth and persistence of our tribalist instincts. We want to classify people, and then label them based upon their class rather than their individual merits.

                For instance, just consider the title of a recent Washington Post article by sociologist Shamus Khan: Kavanaugh is lying. His upbringing explains why. The appalling thesis of the article was that because Brett Kavanaugh is from a wealthy family, we should all assume that he is a liar.

                This proposition should shock our collective conscience not only because we believe in due process, but also because we believe that every person is more than the sum of his or her race, gender, ethnicity, education and socio-economic status. Yet we have been shamefully quick to abandon our noble conviction that justice requires us to evaluate a man according to the content of his character not the content of his parents bank account.

                Justice Kavanaughs confirmation proceedings have been a sad reflection of our politics and our culture. Lets at least learn our lessons and purpose to do better.



                https://www.wnd.com/2018/10/kavanaug...gly-realities/
                The verdict on your man Moore has yet to come in. Whether he's an upstanding citizen or a bad stereotype of a degenerate judicial official from the Deep South, will be determined during one or two civil trials scheduled in Alabama.

                Moore is striking back, with at least one defamation lawsuit. He's dropped another lawsuit against a DC outfit. The Big One, a defamation lawsuit regarding an allegation of "pedophilia" (the accuser being a 14 yr. old girl at the time of the alleged incident) hasn't started yet. The setting for that suit hasn't gone Moore's way. That might mean something, might not; Moore was not at all happy about the change of venue:
                "The Court itself admits venue is proper in either county. Should not the case be tried in the county where we both live and where her reputation and character are well known?" Moore said.
                http://www.startribune.com/alabama-s...ore/491118631/

                ?


                • Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                  and, yet, we had proof ... solid evidence ... that Drunkard Ted left that girl in his car to die, and got nothing.
                  Congress has done a somewhat better job of sending their worse criminals up the river since the Ted Incident. We should have a tally on D's vs. R's getting thrown under the Big House Bus. Do you think the GOP does a better job of throwing their bad boys under the bus, or is it the Dems? To improve party reputation (generally in the toilet at this time), it's an important question.

                  ?


                  • Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                    and, yet, we had proof ... solid evidence ... that Drunkard Ted left that girl in his car to die, and got nothing.
                    That double standard/hypocrisy that we deny and pretend isn't there... too many of us do

                    The guilty are innocent.

                    The innocent are guilty !

                    Great racket they play on the people of America.

                    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                    The verdict on your man Moore has yet to come in. Whether he's an upstanding citizen or a bad stereotype of a degenerate judicial official from the Deep South, will be determined during one or two civil trials scheduled in Alabama.

                    Moore is striking back, with at least one defamation lawsuit. He's dropped another lawsuit against a DC outfit. The Big One, a defamation lawsuit regarding an allegation of "pedophilia" (the accuser being a 14 yr. old girl at the time of the alleged incident) hasn't started yet. The setting for that suit hasn't gone Moore's way. That might mean something, might not; Moore was not at all happy about the change of venue:

                    http://www.startribune.com/alabama-s...ore/491118631/
                    The verdict is the same.

                    This is a lot of public bullf^7ckery occurring in our media & courts to ruin people that other people don't like.

                    This slanderous crap can be done to ANYBODY.

                    It's political garbage played by demorats to smear/destroy someones reputation and career.

                    There is real wrong done when we allow this.

                    These kinds of manipulations lead us only to evil.

                    Are we now going to believe every "accuser" when a person is nominated to the supreme court or other high office ???

                    Every person that "comes forward" with a 20, 30 or 40 year old allegation of ... what ?

                    What do you think ????????????

                    Some kind of "sexual impropriety"

                    It was first tested out on Roy Moore. .worked marvelously !

                    Will we now let this become a standard tactic in our politics and society ?

                    Consider this becoming a standard practice in America !

                    ..... destroying those we don't want to succeed.

                    Easy enough to do. . NOW

                    Find someone of the opposite sex that knew, even just lived near, the person we want to destroy.... the rest is history....great way to easily screw someones life up !!!

                    ... Best of all, it can be used against ANYONE !!!

                    Democrat

                    YOU

                    Republican

                    Christian

                    Muslim

                    Jew

                    Independant

                    Atheist

                    ... it doesn't matter.

                    This is dangerous fraud period.

                    ?


                    • Important details about Christine Blasey Ford, her accusations & the people involved

                      This was an obvious fraud.

                      As I've said from the very beginning..

                      Originally posted by redrover View Post
                      Once again president Trump is telling us to buy a pig in a poke.Just as he said we don't need to see his tax returns he's telling congress they don't need to see the requested documents whatfor do you gotta see them I already told you he's a fine man. Case closed. If we can't trust Trumpsy who can we trust? I can already hear the howls when the impeachment trial begins and Cavanaugh recuses himself. If I knew he was going to recuse himself I would have picked somebody else.
                      Nothings turning out the way rover hoped... sorry rover. Hate & dishonesty get you no where.

                      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      This latest Supreme Court nomination process has revealed the raw, unscrupulous, scorched-earth politics of the Democrats for all to see. Apparently for them, it's now all in with Saul Alinsky, whose ten rules for radicals can be boiled down to one: "the ends justify the means."

                      Great harm has been inflicted on the Senate, the Supreme Court, and constitutional due process. Let us hope now that the unraveling of the Christine Blasey Ford story can act as a catalyst for the wheels of justice to begin turning at a faster pace. Boldness is needed, and there is simply no more important or cathartic action to end double standards and restore equality before the law and restore faith in government institutions than the prosecution of "high crime and misdemeanor lawbreakers," whoever they are.

                      Was Christine Blasey Ford's testimony against Judge Brett Kavanaugh a total con job? It had all the earmarks of an 11th-hour ambush, facilitated by the dismissal of the lack of corroborating evidence, a predictable presumption of guilt ginned up by media that feed sensationalism and mob rule, and the calculated protection of the impenetrable shield of the #MeToo movement. It almost worked.

                      There are also fingerprints of a Deep State political hit job. The Steele dossier and Kavanaugh accusation have a lot in common, each being based on uncorroborated charges involving sex tailor-made to foment a media circus, which is now the tail that wags the political dog in America.

                      To better understand these destructive forces, we need to follow the lawyers, just as we need to follow the money. Flanked on each side of Ford at her October 4 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee were attorneys Debra Katz and Michael Bromwich.

                      Michael Bromwich's selection to Ford's legal team may be specifically related to his longstanding ties with the FBI and DOJ. Interestingly, he happens to be an attorney for Andrew McCabe, the former FBI director fired for lying to investigators from his own agency. Out of all the lawyers in the most lawyered city in America, why would Ford choose him? Maybe Bromwich was chosen for Ford as the one attorney uniquely positioned to influence a final anticipated FBI investigation through McCabe's remaining supporters within the FBI.

                      Debra Katz, introduced to Ford by Senator Dianne Feinstein, is more than just a lawyer. An early major fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, Katz is also a left-wing street activist involved with various resist Trump efforts. She serves as vice chair of the Project on Government Oversight, a "core grantee" of George Soros's Open Society Foundation, which also funded some 20 of the largest groups that led the anti-Kavanaugh protests.

                      Ford visited and probably sought counsel from her Best Friend Forever and lawyer, Monica McLean, in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware for four days in late July. There Ford drafted and sent the fateful July 30 letter accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. It turns out that friend Monica was a former FBI special agent, having joined the DOJ in 1992 as a lawyer for the FBI, where she worked for 24 years, retiring after Trump was elected.

                      After Ford's accusation against Kavanaugh blew wide open, McLean saw potential blowback coming as a result of her involvement with Ford. She got legal counsel from attorney David Laufman, former DOJ prosecutor and chief of the National Security Division's Counterintelligence and Export Control. Laufman had previously assisted FBI Counter-Intelligence chief Peter Strzok on both the Hillary Clinton and Russian investigations including the infamous "unsworn" interview with Clinton. Laufman resigned from the FBI in February, and Strzok was fired from the bureau in August.

                      These connections clearly support conjecture as to the scope and lengths to which people associated with the Deep State work together to destroy a nominee to the Supreme Court as they've been doing to the duly elected president.

                      What's more vital to contemplate and support is that at least one grand jury is currently hearing testimony far from the media's klieg lights from various individuals associated with the known cast of characters behind the rigged Hillary Clinton investigation and Robert Mueller's dubious Russian collusion inquiry. One can find encouragement that much more truth will be forthcoming as the unsealing of many thousands more indictments widens the scope of grand jury inquiries.


                      https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...r_hit_job.html

                      ?


                      • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                        That double standard/hypocrisy that we deny and pretend isn't there... too many of us do

                        The guilty are innocent.

                        The innocent are guilty !

                        Great racket they play on the people of America.



                        The verdict is the same.

                        This is a lot of public bullf^7ckery occurring in our media & courts to ruin people that other people don't like.

                        This slanderous crap can be done to ANYBODY.

                        It's political garbage played by demorats to smear/destroy someones reputation and career.

                        There is real wrong done when we allow this.

                        These kinds of manipulations lead us only to evil.

                        Are we now going to believe every "accuser" when a person is nominated to the supreme court or other high office ???

                        Every person that "comes forward" with a 20, 30 or 40 year old allegation of ... what ?

                        What do you think ????????????

                        Some kind of "sexual impropriety"

                        It was first tested out on Roy Moore. .worked marvelously !

                        Will we now let this become a standard tactic in our politics and society ?

                        Consider this becoming a standard practice in America !

                        ..... destroying those we don't want to succeed.

                        Easy enough to do. . NOW

                        Find someone of the opposite sex that knew, even just lived near, the person we want to destroy.... the rest is history....great way to easily screw someones life up !!!

                        ... Best of all, it can be used against ANYONE !!!

                        Democrat

                        YOU

                        Republican

                        Christian

                        Muslim

                        Jew

                        Independant

                        Atheist

                        ... it doesn't matter.

                        This is dangerous fraud period.
                        The reputations of both Moore and his accuser will be determined in their (generally conservative) home state, not at a nightmare feminist trial conducted inside the fevered craniums of paranoid conservatives. If her accusation is without basis and he wins, Moore gets to restore his reputation and then (successfully) sue the crap out of some well-healed people that made some comments about him.

                        OTOH, if her accusation meets the standards of "preponderance of evidence" and he loses the trial against his accuser, he gets to have his pockets emptied and watch more jokes at his expense.

                        What doesn't happen, despite some people's hopes to the contrary, is the court drops a civil suit merely because the alleged incidents happened several decades ago. That might happen if the alleged incident were less serious -a drunken paw on a breast at a high school party, but nothing more. But this allegation involves a 30-something having sex with a 14 year old. Trial has standing, despite "good 'ol boys club" objections to the contrary.

                        ?


                        • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                          The reputations of both Moore and his accuser will be determined in their (generally conservative) home state, not at a nightmare feminist trial conducted inside the fevered craniums of paranoid conservatives. If her accusation is without basis and he wins, Moore gets to restore his reputation and then (successfully) sue the crap out of some well-healed people that made some comments about him.

                          OTOH, if her accusation meets the standards of "preponderance of evidence" and he loses the trial against his accuser, he gets to have his pockets emptied and watch more jokes at his expense.

                          What doesn't happen, despite some people's hopes to the contrary, is the court drops a civil suit merely because the alleged incidents happened several decades ago. That might happen if the alleged incident were less serious -a drunken paw on a breast at a high school party, but nothing more. But this allegation involves a 30-something having sex with a 14 year old. Trial has standing, despite "good 'ol boys club" objections to the contrary.
                          It didn't happen.

                          If this really is going to be dragged through a court, that will be the outcome.

                          These are liberal liars just like this Ford woman.

                          That these smears worked in this instance is true.

                          That these kind of things will no longer be effective is now also true - see Supreme Court

                          ?


                          • Now for the consequences of 'believing' liars who accuse people of "sexual improprieties"

                            ... especially highly questionable accusations made DECADES LATER

                            It may have seemed like a great political dirty trick to ruin the chances of appointing people to positions.

                            It even worked ! ..against R Moore at least.

                            But now... now the sick little game has,... people are reacting to it. . .

                            ...

                            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            The new normal: Don't hire a woman

                            Even MSNBC Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski warned the #MeToo movement may be spiraling out of control and could lead to dangerous consequences in the workplace. I know men who wont hire women now, she said in December 2017. Right now any woman can say anything, and a mans career is ruined. Now, a lot of women can say things that are true, and [the mens] careers should be ruined. But the problem is that any woman can say anything, and thats it, its over. Is that how were running businesses now?

                            If women want to be treated equally to men as they should then they must be held to the same standards of accountability, stated columnist Jane Chastain. They cannot make charges without any supporting evidence against a man with whom they are ideologically opposed, and not be held to accountability.

                            ..In the wake of the lefts meltdown over the Kavanaugh proceedings, a stunning backlash is emerging from the #MeToo and Believe Women movements:

                            Men dont want to hire, work with, travel with, mingle with, dine with, chat with, network with, or otherwise associate with women in the workplace.

                            While its highly commendable so many companies have implemented sexual harassment policies to stem inappropriate behavior, the pendulum is now swinging the other way: innocent men are being accused of inappropriate behavior without cause or evidence. Several readers sent me emails with stories about vindictive female coworkers filing unfounded complaints about male coworkers, who are then fired without being able to defend themselves against the allegations.

                            An uncertainty of what constitutes sexual harassment has made some men uncomfortable around female co-workers and wary about how to navigate changing workplace dynamics, diplomatically states an article published by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM).

                            One troubling trend, said SHRM CEO Johnny C. Taylor, Jr., is executives going as far as to not invite female colleagues on trips, to evening networking events or into their inner circles to avoid any situation that could be perceived incorrectly, thus reducing the opportunity for women. Taylor added, There were men who specifically said I will not hire a woman going forward.'

                            Dont think for one minute I approve of this development. Im merely pointing out its an inevitable unintended consequence of the #MeToo and Believe Women movements.

                            Feminists will instantly conclude this workplace trend is a result of good ol chauvinism by the good ol boys network. In some cases, it might be. But across America, from Wall Street to Main Street, the quiet, unspoken ripple effect of #MeToo and Believe Women will be a greater wariness and less frequent hiring of women. Even sexual harassment policies are viewed as ineffective because employees interpreted them as protecting irrational or oversensitive women at the expense of men.



                            https://www.wnd.com/2018/10/the-new-...-hire-a-woman/

                            ?


                            • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StXWsWNkL_U

                              ?


                              • ... looks like you now know what many of us experienced during the bush/obama years ... and worse.

                                Discussing and agreeing and even agreeing to disagree, seems to have been thrown out the window...

                                ....of course we can blame each other and flame each other and keep doing it..

                                ....and we can keep listening to certain people of a certain party calling to harass and commit acts of violence against others that don't think like they do.

                                Or we could return to the civilized world and make these predictions of another upcoming "civil war" asinine & ridiculous.

                                As I hope they are.

                                But one can never tell with how people are talking today. Are we still mostly an animal of war ??

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X