Trump Derangement Syndrome - Orange man bad. Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ) 🗿🗿🗿🗿

WashPost’s SJW board has announced to oppose Kavanaugh.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...495e3a-c7f3-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html

Washington Post’s board of cucks said:
AS SENATORS prepare to vote this week on Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh, they, and the rest of the country, must wonder: Which Brett M. Kavanaugh are they evaluating? Is it the steady, conservative jurist he was reputed to be before his confirmation saga? Or is it a partisan operative harboring suspicions and resentments about Democrats, with possible misdeeds in his past?

Unfortunately — and unnecessarily; it didn’t have to be this way — too many questions remain about his history for senators to responsibly vote “yes.” At the same time, enough has been learned about his partisan instincts that we believe senators must vote “no.”

We do not say so lightly. We have not opposed a Supreme Court nominee, liberal or conservative, since Robert H. Bork in 1987. We believe presidents are entitled to significant deference if they nominate well-qualified people within the broad mainstream of judicial thought. When President Trump named Mr. Kavanaugh, he seemed to be such a person: an accomplished judge whom any conservative president might have picked. But given Republicans’ refusal to properly vet Mr. Kavanaugh, and given what we have learned about him during the process, we now believe it would be a serious blow to the court and the nation if he were confirmed.

One element of the GOP vetting failure has been all but forgotten in the drama over alleged sexual assaults, but it remains for us a serious shortcoming. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee refused to ask for all the potentially relevant documents from his time serving in the George W. Bush White House. The reason was not principled but political: Though they had kept a Supreme Court seat vacant for most of 2016, they wanted to ram through Mr. Kavanaugh before this year’s midterm elections. Those documents, which could have been processed without crippling delay, might end up supporting his case, or they might not; we have no idea. But any responsible senator should insist on seeing them before casting a vote.

It certainly would have been preferable if Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation had surfaced sooner, and then been investigated more promptly. But what matters now is not partisan fault but finding the truth about her claim — or at least making as fair and thorough an effort to find it as possible. Mr. Trump and the Republicans have prevented such an effort. This week’s belated investigation, reluctantly agreed to by the majority, was unduly narrow.

Unsurprisingly, Senate Republicans quickly and unconvincingly claimed that it was exculpatory. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) came to his conclusion before even this cursory examination was complete.

We continue to believe that Ms. Ford is a credible witness with no motivation to lie. It is conceivable that she and Mr. Kavanaugh are both being truthful, in the sense that he has no memory of the event. It is also conceivable that Ms. Ford’s memory is at fault. We wish the FBI had been allowed to probe Mr. Kavanaugh’s credibility more fully. But our conclusion about Mr. Kavanaugh’s fitness does not rest on believing one side or the other.

If Mr. Kavanaugh truly is, or believes himself to be, a victim of mistaken identity, his anger is understandable. But he went further in last Thursday’s hearing than expressing anger. He gratuitously indulged in hyperpartisan rhetoric against “the left,” describing his stormy confirmation as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election” and “revenge on behalf of the Clintons.” He provided neither evidence nor even a plausible explanation for this red-meat partisanship, but he poisoned any sense that he could serve as an impartial judge. Democrats or liberal activists would have no reason to trust in his good faith in any cases involving politics. Even beyond such cases, his judgment and temperament would be in doubt.

Such doubts feed into concerns about Mr. Kavanaugh’s independence from Mr. Trump and his deference to executive power, at a moment when fateful questions for the presidency may be winding their way to the court. Mr. Kavanaugh began his confirmation process by bowing obsequiously to Mr. Trump, claiming, absurdly, that “no president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.” Mr. Kavanaugh then declined to offer much reassurance about how he would handle cases involving Mr. Trump. Given his writings arguing that a president should be free of criminal investigations while in office, it would be best for the court’s reputation for Mr. Kavanaugh to recuse himself from any such case, lest it appear that Mr. Trump chose him in order to foil the Justice Department’s Russia probe. If not a commitment to recuse, he should have offered more of a sense that he would treat the issue with due delicacy.

Finally, Mr. Kavanaugh raised questions about his candor that, while each on its own is not disqualifying, are worrying in the context of his demand that Ms. Ford and his other accusers be dismissed and disbelieved. These include his role in the nomination of controversial judge Charles Pickering while working for Mr. Bush, his knowledge of the origin of materials stolenfrom Democratic Senate staff between 2001 and 2003, and his lawyerly obfuscations about his high school and college years.

And what of Mr. Kavanaugh’s political philosophy? Here we freely admit that Mr. Kavanaugh would not have been our choice. A president concerned for the court’s standing would have nominated someone of more moderate views for the seat vacated by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court’s erstwhile swing vote — particularly given the Senate’s inexcusable refusal to consider Judge Merrick Garland when President Barack Obama nominated that eminently qualified jurist.

But we would not have opposed Mr. Kavanaugh on that basis, just as we did not think GOP senators should have voted against Sonia Sotomayor because they did not like her views. Rather, the reason not to vote for Mr. Kavanaugh is that senators have not been given sufficient information to consider him — and that he has given them ample evidence to believe he is unsuited for the job. The country deserves better.
Click to expand...
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Kinkshamer
078a88f6180a9f01024a60211ec8ffb5.png
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Lizard Pope, Vault Boy and 14 others
Was in a discussion with my childhood friend a few days back where he brought up the topic of Trump and Kavanaugh (which I’ll share more in the megathread.)

Firstly, to :powerlevel: a bit, news from the US that reaches my part of the globe is mainly from the MSM, so I admit I was a little afraid of what’ll happen when Trump got elected. Then came the Salt Mine and figured that if his election is causing SJWs to meltdown, with the ree’ing of incoming death camps and rape’isms of women, then maybe he isn’t as bad as they spin him to be.

Back to this discussion, he was unfortunately for the impeachment of Trump, and if that failed, arrest of his son for supposed business links to Russia. Also while he admitted that much progress was made with the Norks, they apparently are not gonna dismantle their nuclear arsenal and the US is back to square one somehow.

He also thought that the people who wear “I’d rather vote Russia than Democrat” shirts were traitors, where I replied that they saw how utterly backward they have progressed and this is more of a statement than what they would actually do.

Would appreciate some insight on the trade war with China as he brought up concerns it would affect the price of goods in my region.

I just let him talk since I had not caught up with current developments at the time and he wasn’t all out TDS, is quite normal otherwise and was not worth losing our friendship over.

TL: DR who would’ve thought I’d get more accurate and impartial information from a site that mocks exceptional people on the internet?
 
  • Informative
  • Feels
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Vault Boy, sick_hypnotic and 7 others
Godzilla@1989 said:
WashPost’s SJW board has announced to oppose Kavanaugh.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...495e3a-c7f3-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html
Click to expand...

"The political hatchet job pulled on Fuckface Kavanaugh, which we participated in, was not a hatchet job as we were using tomahawks not hatchets. Continue resisting against near record levels of employment for American citizens. Fuckface Kavanaugh might only be ID'ed by testamony from 30 fucking years ago, from people who were drunk teens at a party at the time, and was only pulled out at the last minute to derail the proceedings at their final stage, but that should be enough to lynch him and ensure the Dems have at least a shot to control congress for the next nominee.We are the Washington Post, a completely neutral and trustworthy newsource, reporting on Fuckface Kavanaugh and reminding you it was her turn."

Also, Sotomayer should have been blockaded because she is a fucking retard making rulings with shoddy basis in law, only based on what she's feeling at the moment, and with what I can only assume is brain damage from the beetus. At least I hope its the beetus, I hate to think she got to where she was having always been that dumb.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Vault Boy, Stab You in the Back and 12 others
  • Agree
  • Winner
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Lizard Pope, Vault Boy and 14 others
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Vault Boy, Munchingonfish and 6 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back