Trump gets another SCOTUS appointment?

Daryl, the average voters are pissed and embarrassed by the Demoncrats because the Centralists have been replaced by Far Left Radicals/Progressives. Their behavior throughout the hearings have enraged many people around the nation. That's why the foreigners opinion on this issue do not mean anything. Comment all you want but this issue will be decided at the voting booth. I will be voting early straight Republican period then I am going fishing! Yes, I am angry because of the Demoncrats behavior!

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtsch ... s-n2525987

Red Tsunami! Red Tsunami! Red Tsumami!

smr wrote:Daryl, the average voters are pissed and embarrassed by the Democrats...

Do you even know what polling data *is*???

(And if you think "average voters" write Op Ed's on townhall.com you're beyond hope.)

Like when Trump was predicted to get slaughtered in 2018...Yeah I know how inaccurate polling data can be.

gcomeau wrote:

smr wrote:Daryl, the average voters are pissed and embarrassed by the Democrats...

Do you even know what polling data *is*???

(And if you think "average voters" write Op Ed's on townhall.com you're beyond hope.)

smr wrote:Like when Trump was predicted to get slaughtered in 2018...Yeah I know how inaccurate polling data can be.

The polls predicted that Trump would lose the popular vote.

Which he did. By several million votes.

Rasmussen has Trump's Approval numbers over 50% as of today's release. If that Trend continues, it bodes ill for Democrats. That Trump's approval rating came on the heels of the much publicized exercise in character assassination of Justice Kavanaugh, it suggests that a significant portion of the US electorate disagrees with Canadians like you and are indeed moved to support the President in response to his support of Justice Kavanaugh. That or they like his USMC Agreement so much they will overlook the Dem's disgraceful antics. As much as there is to like in this iteration of NAFTA, I doubt enough American pay enough attention to trade agreements to move his approval numbers.

I am most eager to see how the internals of the new polls break down. Personally, I expect to see an erosion in Dem support from suburban women. I would not be at all surprised if the President draws support from inner city minorities to Republicans either. In a high turnout midterm, the black vote may go as low as 90% pro Dem rather than the 93%+. In a low turnout environment, Trump may push it down to 85% pro Dem.

smr wrote:Daryl, the average voters are pissed and embarrassed by the Democrats...

gcomeau wrote:
Do you even know what polling data *is*???

(And if you think "average voters" write Op Ed's on townhall.com you're beyond hope.)

PeterZ wrote:Rasmussen has Trump's Approval numbers over 50% as of today's release.

http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6179.html

The most republican leaning pollster in the country having him at barely break even is not exactly "let's throw a party" territory for the GOP.

If that Trend continues, it bodes ill for Democrats. That Trump's approval rating came on the heels of the much publicized exercise in character assassination of Justice Kavanaugh,

And on what basis do you conclude that the many many many witnesses who came forward (and were ignored presumably under orders by the FBI) were all lying?

it suggests that a significant portion of the US electorate disagrees with Canadians like you and are indeed moved to support the President in response to his support of Justice Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh is by far the most publicly opposed Supreme Court justice in history. You would have to get pretty twisty in your logic to conclude that pushing through the most unpopular justice to be confirmed in the entire history of the country was grounds for a swell of support.

That or they like his USMC Agreement so much they will overlook the Dem's disgraceful antics.

I assume you mean "renamed NAFTA" (USMCA) and not the marines? It's possible that large numbers of Trump supporting Americans are stupid enough to think that he accomplished something significant there.

PeterZ wrote:Rasmussen has Trump's Approval numbers over 50% as of today's release.

gcomeau wrote:
http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6179.html

The most republican leaning pollster in the country having him at barely break even is not exactly "let's throw a party" territory for the GOP.

It is actual a party territory event. Even Rasmussen hasn't had the President over 50% since very early in his administration. All this hysterical one sided coverage the President has gotten is beginning to be ignored. Especially after the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings.

PeterZ wrote:If that Trend continues, it bodes ill for Democrats. That Trump's approval rating came on the heels of the much publicized exercise in character assassination of Justice Kavanaugh,

gcomeau wrote:And on what basis do you conclude that the many many many witnesses who came forward (and were ignored presumably under orders by the FBI) were all lying?

That according to Leyland Keyser Monica McLean attempted to get Keyser to change her statement....that is commit perjury...and support Dr. Ford's account of the events in question should be enough. That's the Monica McLean Dr. Ford's ex-boy friend stated under threat of felony swore Dr. Ford coached to take a lie detector test. This is in contradiction to Dr. Ford's testimony swearing she never coached anyone to take lie detector tests. If that's not enough, Dr. Ford's documented memory of events moved the event from the late 80's in her therapist's notes to mid 80's in her letter that Dianne Feinstein leaked to the press to the early 80's and then finally 1982 in her senate testimony.
As for Ms. Swetnick, she changed her story from her sworn statement to the senate to her account on NBC interview. She did not corroborate her own story in the interview. NBC could not corroborate her story using the names she gave as witnesses. The same is true for Dr. Ford. No witnesses given corroborates any of the stories from any of these accusers.
Americans, it appears, care more about due process and the presumption of innocence that you Canadians.

PeterZ wrote:it suggests that a significant portion of the US electorate disagrees with Canadians like you and are indeed moved to support the President in response to his support of Justice Kavanaugh.

gcomeau wrote:Kavanaugh is by far the most publicly opposed Supreme Court justice in history. You would have to get pretty twisty in your logic to conclude that pushing through the most unpopular justice to be confirmed in the entire history of the country was grounds for a swell of support.

Kavanaugh is unpopular because paid protestors trained to repeat their master's commands shout those commands from the steps of the Capital and SCOTUS. They harass congress just as they are paid to do. The lapdog press covers these staged and orchestrated events like they were organic and grass roots.no grass roots here!

PeterZ wrote:That or they like his USMC Agreement so much they will overlook the Dem's disgraceful antics.

gcomeau wrote:I assume you mean "renamed NAFTA" (USMCA) and not the marines? It's possible that large numbers of Trump supporting Americans are stupid enough to think that he accomplished something significant there.

We can't help that Canada has outsourced their manufacturing capacity to China and now simply assemble chinese produced parts. We can prevent those chinese manufactured parts from being sold in the US so long as China's government and companies steals US intelectual property. We can place tarrifs on those goods whether they come directly from China or through Canada.

I can't help it if some Canadians are too stupid to recognize they are tools.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6179.html

The most republican leaning pollster in the country having him at barely break even is not exactly "let's throw a party" territory for the GOP.

It is actual a party territory event. Even Rasmussen hasn't had the President over 50% since very early in his administration.

"Very early in his administration" being May 4th of this year?

Rasmussen has had him bouncing around in a very narrow window from the mid to high 40s with an occasional blip up to 50 or 51 for a very long time.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:And on what basis do you conclude that the many many many witnesses who came forward (and were ignored presumably under orders by the FBI) were all lying?

That according to Leyland Keyser Monica McLean attempted to get Keyser to change her statement....that is commit perjury...

Even FOX News isn't peddling that BS. They reported Leyland was asked to CLARIFY the statement. Which is a very long way from perjury.

That's the Monica McLean Dr. Ford's ex-boy friend stated under threat of felony swore Dr. Ford coached to take a lie detector test. This is in contradiction to Dr. Ford's testimony swearing she never coached anyone to take lie detector tests.

Uh huh...

An anonymous "ex boyfriend" who supposedly dated her in the 90s somehow has detailed knowledge of a plot to coach her through a lie detector test this year.... how exactly?

If that's not enough, Dr. Ford's documented memory of events moved the event from the late 80's in her therapist's notes to mid 80's in her letter that Dianne Feinstein leaked to the press to the early 80's and then finally 1982 in her senate testimony.

And where exactly did you get the information that her therapists notes say "late 80s"?

As for Ms. Swetnick, she changed her story from her sworn statement to the senate to her account on NBC interview. She did not corroborate her own story in the interview. NBC could not corroborate her story using the names she gave as witnesses.

She has a corroborating witness who gave a sworn account. And would you care to get specific about how her interview differed from her sworn testimony? The only thing I'm aware of is describing the boys waiting to enter a room as "huddled" outside the door in one and "lined up" outside the door in another which is hardly significant.

The same is true for Dr. Ford. No witnesses given corroborates any of the stories from any of these accusers.

Ford had 3 potential witnesses. One would have been admiting to a felony since he was in the room participating, and the other two just said they couldn't recall.

Americans, it appears, care more about due process and the presumption of innocence that you Canadians.

Due process would have involved a proper investigation, not the quashing of one. So don't try to feed my any BS line about your respect for it.

PeterZ wrote:it suggests that a significant portion of the US electorate disagrees with Canadians like you and are indeed moved to support the President in response to his support of Justice Kavanaugh.

Has TFLY hacked your account, or is there some other reason you suddenly seem obsessed with my Canadian-ness?

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Kavanaugh is by far the most publicly opposed Supreme Court justice in history. You would have to get pretty twisty in your logic to conclude that pushing through the most unpopular justice to be confirmed in the entire history of the country was grounds for a swell of support.

Kavanaugh is unpopular because paid protestors trained to repeat their master's commands shout those commands from the steps of the Capital and SCOTUS.

The theory that TFLY has hacked your account grows more plausible. Here comes the ridiculous conspiracy theories.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote: I assume you mean "renamed NAFTA" (USMCA) and not the marines? It's possible that large numbers of Trump supporting Americans are stupid enough to think that he accomplished something significant there.

We can't help that Canada has outsourced their manufacturing capacity to China and now simply assemble chinese produced parts. We can prevent those chinese manufactured parts from being sold in the US so long as China's government and companies steals US intelectual property. We can place tarrifs on those goods whether they come directly from China or through Canada.

I can't help it if some Canadians are too stupid to recognize they are tools.

Wow... you actually seriously think Trump significantly changed NAFTA. They tweaked a line item here and there and basically just left the entire deal intact. You do know that right?

USA Today reports

Here is the reference of the shifting timelines.

As for clarifying her testimony, Leyland Keyser reported to the FBI she recieved pressure to change her testimony. Pressure by an ex-FBI agent to clarify her statement. Yeah, no witness tampering here.

There was a proper background investigation. Actually there were 7 of them on Kavanaugh. The FBI couldn't conduct a criminal investigation because there was not enough evidence to get a warrant let alone take to a grand jury. It appears your idea of due process is a kangaroo court where accusations by fellow travelers is enough to convict. Of course believing the accuser only goes one way-Kieth Ellison anyone?


Ms. Swetnick claimed in her statement that Justice Kavanaugh directly organized the gang rapes at more than 10 parties she attended. That justice Kavanaugh participated in those gang rapes. One of those gang rapes was perpetrated on her. In her Interview she denied direct knowledge that Justice Kavanaugh directly organized the rape line. She stated only that she saw Justice Kavanaugh passing out red solo cups that she assumed were spiked, because she has no direct evidence that the Justice actually spiked them. That she never saw Justice Kavanaugh near those rape lines. The story fell apart when she changed it in material ways.

As for USMCA, whatever you say. You guys had better begin actually manufacturing things again or your economy become Mexico's client rather than China's.

Ultimately, the proof will be during the midterms. When US proglodytes see their candidates defeated, I'll be proven correct. If they don't, I'll be proven wrong. We'll see. Until then, my heart warms that proggies like you don't get their way.

PeterZ wrote:USA Today reports

Here is the reference of the shifting timelines.

No, USA Today does not report. You just linked to an Op-Ed by a right wing writer. An Op-Ed which does not contain any actual sourcing for the claim I just asked you to source.

You do appreciate the difference between an op-ed and reporting, yes?

As for clarifying her testimony, Leyland Keyser reported to the FBI she recieved pressure to change her testimony. Pressure by an ex-FBI agent to clarify her statement. Yeah, no witness tampering here.

Show me where she reported that to the FBI. To CHANGE... not to CLARIFY.

There was a proper background investigation.

A proper background investigation does not occur under instructions to disregard multiple witnesses to claimed criminal activity. So no there damn well was not.

Actually there were 7 of them on Kavanaugh. The FBI couldn't conduct a criminal investigation because there was not enough evidence to get a warrant let alone take to a grand jury.

You don't need a warrant to talk to witnesses who are ASKING TO TALK TO YOU.

And as for the previous background investigations, until you have a reason to look you don't just have a standard background check go around digging for specific evidence of a specific sexual assault.

It appears your idea of due process is a kangaroo court where accusations by fellow travelers is enough to convict. Of course believing the accuser only goes one way-Kieth Ellison anyone?

Keith Ellison asked for an investigation into the accusation to happen himself.

See the difference?

Ms. Swetnick claimed in her statement that Justice Kavanaugh directly organized the gang rapes at more than 10 parties she attended.

I have read her sworn statement. No she did not. She said he was present and involved.

That justice Kavanaugh participated in those gang rapes. One of those gang rapes was perpetrated on her. In her Interview she denied direct knowledge that Justice Kavanaugh directly organized the rape line.

A statement in line with her sworn testimony.

She stated only that she saw Justice Kavanaugh passing out red solo cups that she assumed were spiked, because she has no direct evidence that the Justice actually spiked them.

Again, her sworn statement said she became aware of his and his friends efforts to spike the punch, not that she personally saw him putting the alcohol in it. In the interview she was specifically asked if she saw him herself putting the alcohol in and she said no, she saw him handing out drinks to a lot of girls though.

This is not a contradication of her sworn testimony.

That she never saw Justice Kavanaugh near those rape lines.

That she did NOT say in her interview, you just made that up. She was specifically asked by Snow in the interview if she saw Kavanaugh in the groups of boys waiting outside the bedrooms and she said yes. Again, as she said in her statement.

So it looks like what actually has fallen apart is your claim that her story fell apart.

As for USMCA, whatever you say. You guys had better begin actually manufacturing things again or your economy become Mexico's client rather than China's.

You clearly have no idea what's in the agreement...