SectionC3

Funny that nobody played the socialism card when Trump approved of sending checks (to which he even tried to apply his signature) to nearly every American.

Please do share what constitutes a “viable pundit.”

Hoax. You just came up short again!

I don’t have to address anyone about my opinion. Sorry. Whatever dialogue is had in that point isn’t going to change my mind. I watched, I listened, I evaluated, and I concluded that I believed her testimony and not his. Now, on your weird dysmorphic disorder, your obsession with your junk has got to end. It’s deeply disturbing to all of us here who wish to engage in clean, intellectual, and family-friendly conversation.

Hoax. I address the important issues. Unlike you, however, I don’t focus on the question of a certain appendage of yours. Sick!

Not sure why you keep bringing up the issue of your “dick.” It’s very disturbing. I certainly have no interest in either seeing or straining to see such a thing.

People who like people who drink cofeve.

So we know who spray painted that message?

It’s not a joke. I’m serious. It’s OAN or nothing in our house. Even the fish watches it.

But sure about her political affiliation. But I hear that she is short. You’re familiar with that, right? Of course I can answer. I just don’t owe you an answer. My view of Kavanaugh is an opinion. I formed it after I watched the accuser speak, considered the circumstances of her disclosure, watched Kavanaugh speak, and considered the exploits of Bart, Squiggy, and the crew. A credibility determination isn’t scientific or algorithmic, as I’m sure you know.

Please. Coming from you. This used to be your conspiracy theory/hoax/right wing echo chamber until a few people who enjoy poking holes in your rubbish showed up.

The issue was Kavanaugh. You pulled a "whataboutism" move and tried to change the subject by bringing Joe Biden into the mix. That would be the equivalent of me now saying that everything written in this threat to this point is immaterial because Donald Trump is a self-confessed sexual predator inasmuch as he promotes "grab[bing] 'em by the *****" and (ineffectively, apparently) bangs porn stars while his wife is home with his newborn son, and that your character is suspect because you support such a thing.

Fortunately for the men on the board she's a lesbian so there's nothing to worry about there. People don't realize how good Murph is. It is hard to do a three hour live TV show every day. And it's really hard to do it when football is out of season. It sucks that Murph is leaving, but if he has to go Chris Brown will do a really nice job as a replacement. Brownie is capable of making that show work. Smart, smooth as glass, and also a great guy.

John is a straight up great guy. Three hours of live TV a day is HARD. I would have done exactly the same thing if I was him. Kind of sounds like PSE lowballed him or dragged its feet, and he said eff this and is going to hang with the little guy. Good for him. My experience with him is the polar opposite. Smart, kind, and just a great guy.

Alternate title: Donald Trump dresses as a hippo and has to drop a deuce in Rock Creek Park after record McNugget binge.

“Ballsy Ford?” Not cool, and also not funny. And no, I don’t recall either your question or its context. FYI - Clarence Thomas was a Coke can. That had a ***** hair on it. Allegedly. And Bork was spiked for professional reasons.

Fake news. This is why you’re on the washed up psycho list. A couple of people arrived and disrupted your hoaxy deep state echo chamber and you don’t like it. Too bad.

I agree with you to the extent you contend that it was too late to spike Kavanaugh on that issue, and that it sucked to do it to him on national TV in front of his family. It was dirty politics bereft of concern for, among other things, even the victim. But I don’t feel terribly badly for him because I believe her. He’s a d-bag, and while the proverbial statute ran on what he did, I’m not crying any tears for him.

Hoax. He’s reasonable. You’re on the washed up psycho list.

Hoax.

Yup. Assuming she testified either falsely or mistakenly, I thought his conduct was unbecoming a judge. The proper course would have been to have apologized for the harm in her life and to steadfastly but calmly and assertively state that she identifies the wrong guy. You wanna be a judge? That’s how you’re supposed to act. Not flipping pages like a lunatic, ranting about beer, and making up BS stories about the chauvinistic lies you put in your HS yearbook. And since I believe her, my general view is that the little show he put on was a lousy act.

Really. Normally the higher you get the better the people are (someone who gets that high usually has to be likable). The fact that I feel that way about Kavanaugh should tell you something. To me the worst part of the hearing wasnt the Ford testimony. It was Kavanaugh’s response and his awful temperament.

“Molesting” is an intentionally incendiary word and, in any event, Joe Biden is not the issue here. I watched a lot of the Kavanaugh hearings, and I listened to the entirety of them. I’ve also worked a fair number of sexual assault cases. I believe his accuser. *** Two additional points. 1. Someone can fear flying but still take a plane. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. 2. Corroboration is of course preferred but not essential in a sexual assault case. The very nature of the act often does not lend itself to corroboration. Google the “prompt outcry” rule. You’ll find that courts are lenient on admitting such evidence (the outcry sometimes is far from what most would consider prompt) because of the shame in disclosing a sexual assault to another person.

It’s hard to do such things. Normally you wouldn’t see a “stale” claim like this because the criminal and civil statutes of limitation would have run. The Kavanaugh instance was an outlier; apparently somebody who felt strongly about something terrible that happened earlier in her life felt compelled to speak up about it when the career arc of the alleged perpetrator became too much for her to handle. We also see it in aged cases involving child sexual abuse perpetrated by members of religious orders. But the bottom line is something this stale normally doesn’t come up because there’s no incentive for the alleged victim to “out” himself or herself as a victim of sexual abuse. It’s impossible to know such a thing. But it is possible to have an opinion. My opinion is based on his poor, defiant temperament, my belief in his accuser’s testimony, the general story of his formative years and professional background that was told through his confirmation proceeding, and my intuition (based in part on the coupling of his background with his hiring practices) that he is not a good guy.

The Sierra Club case didn’t result in an injunction. I don’t know the status of the “other” case challenging the constitutionality of the reprogramming. The direct answer to your question, though, is that agencies and other entities subject to the the control of the executive branch are following the directive of their superior to construct a wall using monies that were not constitutionally obtained and the courts have not had proper occasion to enjoin the construction.