The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Because a Devil's Triangle is what Dr. Ford was basically accusing him of trying to do on the night in question?

That and this notion of pervasive drunken sex related activity is pretty relevant to what is being alledged against him.

Its a big leap to "rape" vs consensual 3-some. Maybe the committee should have asked the person that wrote it in his yearbook to determine what it meant.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Well, I've never heard the term until today (not a surprise to me, ha!). And you'd need more than a yearbook entry to prove he knew what it meant and lied about it if you're talking about a perjury charge.

I'm with you, never heard of it until last week ... but admittedly I wasn't a jock and wasn't getting the action he apparently was.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Either way, he perjured himself repeatedly on the meaning of those yearbook quotes. Even if people think he's innocent of the accusations or that his past doesn't matter, you can't put someone on the highest court who commits perjury so effortlessly. That is in fact a disqualifying factor.

I kinda agree with this. Regardless if the 3 accusations are true, I'm pretty sure he lied (but not sure that can be "proven").

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

All he had to say from the start was that he partied in high school and college like many young people. Said the yearbook stuff was childish stuff that immature teenagers do with their friends. Simple as that. Most of the public would understand. I don't really get why you'd commit perjury over something so dumb.

Yup, agree with this. Most people would understand.

[cuervo72]

I'm not sure I'd previously heard of it, but as soon as I heard the phrase it I kinda had an inkling what it might be.

I HAVE heard of an Eiffel Tower though.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Really? Is that why so many Dems came out against the nominee before they had any inkling there might be some other reason to oppose him besides his beliefs? Which, playing devil's advocate, might be reason enough to put forth a campaign against him that is light/loose on facts, just to make sure he's not confirmed because of his beliefs.

I'm not saying we haven't learned enough to potentially change the equation as to this particular nominee, but both parties know what is at stake - which is why Garland got railroaded and the Dems are trying to return the favor now.

Why didn't they try that against Gorsuch last year then? There are dozens of qualified conservative judges with temperament worthy of being on the Supreme Court who didn't likely perjure himself.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Why didn't they try that against Gorsuch last year then? There are dozens of qualified conservative judges with temperament worthy of being on the Supreme Court who didn't likely perjure himself.

Because there was no use trying to delay - what were they delaying for? This year, the arguable basis is trying to get to midterms, hope for a sea change in Congress, and push back against the nominee. None of that was available last year. McConnell checkmated them last year and they had no answer. This year, they have a viable strategy.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Butter

Well since you didn't know about it, I guess we can shut it all down! Close it up boys, Ksyrup never heard of it!

Yes, that was point. Obviously. The comment I was responding to suggested it was a commonly known term. I would disagree.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Federalist is trying to jump a story the NYT is working on.



Two things stick out, one Bart is the name Judge uses in his book for a guy puking in a car, and two, FFFFF surely isn't a verbal tick in this context.

I have a general question - who in the hell keeps all of this crap? Do any of you have letters you wrote about parties, keep calendars from high school, etc.? I can think of one letter I have from about 25 years ago, that I wrote to my aunt, that was returned to me by my uncle after my aunt died, in which I told her about this girl I was dating who I was pretty sure I was going to marry (and did, about 7 years after I wrote it). That's it.

These people are hording 35 year old "let's go party at the beach this summer" letters? Why?!

[jeff061]

He's a jock douche desperately holding onto his glory days?

Anyways, publicizing that letter seems pretty pointless to me.

[whomario]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...-rally-n916061

The leader of "the greatest most awesome country eeeeever", ladies and gents.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

He chose to lie in his first words about the nomination when he praised Trump for having consulted more people than anyone in history. He's comfortable being a blustering bullshitter like Trump.

This is where I am with it. As has been said, if he'd taken a different tack at the hearing, things would be different. I'd be defending him, inasmuch as I consider the need for originalist judges the single greatest imperative in modern politics, don't think there should ever have been a hearing, etc. A Supreme Court Justice must be someone who consistently tells the truth though. Occasional misstatements, ok. Pattern of lying, regardless of circumstances, absolutely not ok.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Yes, that was point. Obviously. The comment I was responding to suggested it was a commonly known term. I would disagree.

It had a wiki page that someone saw fit to edit after the fact to include the definition that Kavanaugh made up. Plus some in his circle of friends have already said it referred to a threesome.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Butter

It had a wiki page that someone saw fit to edit after the fact to include the definition that Kavanaugh made up. Plus some in his circle of friends have already said it referred to a threesome.

There's a Wiki page for Pornogrind, too, but I don't know that I would posit that as proof that the term is known to the general public.

I'm not even arguing that he likely didn't know what it meant. I just made a throwaway comment that I was not familiar with the term that you chose to blow up into a point that I wasn't trying to make.

I'm pretty much in the middle on Kavanaugh. I don't care whether he's confirmed or not. I'm just sitting back and watching the whole circus with a mix of sadness and amusement. I don't know that he's credible/believable on a variety of issues, and I don't know that any of his accusers are specifically credible in terms of his involvement in anything they've alleged. The only certainty I can point to is that both of the political sides have little regard for the truth, so long as they accomplish their big picture objective.

[jeff061]

I don't know that he's credible/believable on a variety of issues

In a world where there are clones of him that don't have this issue, wouldn't you prefer any them? I don't know why this specific aspect of it needs to be partisan.

I'm not looking for a liberal judge right now(just not going to happen),one that has the minimum abilities to do the job would be nice though.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by jeff061

In a world where there are clones of him that don't have this issue, wouldn't you prefer any them? I don't know why this specific aspect of it needs to be partisan.

I'm not looking for a liberal judge right now(just not going to happen),one that has the minimum abilities to do the job would be nice though.

In a normal administation, Amy Coney Barrett would be sailing through confirmation after Kavanaugh withdrew.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm pretty much in the middle on Kavanaugh. I don't care whether he's confirmed or not. I'm just sitting back and watching the whole circus with a mix of sadness and amusement. I don't know that he's credible/believable on a variety of issues, and I don't know that any of his accusers are specifically credible in terms of his involvement in anything they've alleged. The only certainty I can point to is that both of the political sides have little regard for the truth, so long as they accomplish their big picture objective.

So, "both sides" and all that, right?

That's lazy and BS. There are plenty of easily accessible reasons and decisions that Kavanaugh has been involved in that reasonable people could oppose him for, rather than just trying to pull a McConnell.

It's fun though that you have already decided that the Dems are just in this to block ANYONE, not this specific asshole.

[NobodyHere]

Is there any Trump nominee you think the Democrats wouldn't try to block at this point?

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Is there any Trump nominee you think the Democrats wouldn't try to block at this point?

Well you teed that up nicely...

[cartman]

Merrick Garland?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by cartman

Merrick Garland?

I don't think he's on Trump short list at the moment.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Is there any Trump nominee you think the Democrats wouldn't try to block at this point?

Just off the top of my head, I think that Hardiman would get the Gorsuch treatment--sound and fury at the hearing, but ultimate confirmation with some Dem votes.

[albionmoonlight]

dola.

I think that there are two points people are ignoring.

1. The Senate confirmed Gorsuch with Democratic votes for the "Garland" seat. If they weren't willing to burn it down for that, then it isn't about them.

2. But for Dr. Ford coming forward, Kavanaugh would be on the Court right now. He was sailing through confirmation.

I just don't see the evidence for "they will do this to any nominee," and I see a decent amount of evidence cutting the other way.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by bronconick

In a normal administation, Amy Coney Barrett would be sailing through confirmation after Kavanaugh withdrew.

IDK if sailing through includes sound & fury & 90% of Dem Senators voting against her, but day one of his nomination before all this stuff I was hearing how Kavanaugh would ban abortion due to his Catholic faith, and Barrett is also Catholic.

Originally Posted by http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/potential-nominee-profile-amy-coney-barrett/

Several of those articles, however, drew fire at Barrett’s 7th Circuit confirmation hearing, with Democratic senators suggesting that they indicate that Barrett would be influenced by her Catholic faith, particularly on the question of abortion.
...
Barrett’s responses did not mollify Feinstein, who suggested that Barrett had a “long history of believing that religious beliefs should prevail.” In a widely reported exchange, Feinstein told Barrett that, when “you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.”
...
After Barrett’s confirmation hearing but before the Senate voted on her nomination, The New York Times reported that Barrett was a member of a group called People of Praise.” Group members, the Times indicated, “swear a lifelong oath of loyalty to one another, and are assigned and accountable to a personal adviser.” Moreover, the Times added, the group “teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority for their family.” And legal experts questioned whether such oaths “could raise legitimate questions about a judicial nominee’s independence and impartiality.
...
Barrett was confirmed to the 7th Circuit by a vote of 55 to 43. Three Democratic senators – her home state senator, Joe Donnelly, Virginia’s Tim Kaine, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia – crossed party lines to vote for her, while two Democratic senators (Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Robert Menendez of New Jersey) did not vote.

She'd probably be better than Kavanaugh, but that's also during her confirmation for a circuit court which has no authority to overturn Roe v Wade. I imagine it'd be a lot more of the same if she was nominated and seen as the potential swing vote for that on the Supreme Court

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

dola.

I think that there are two points people are ignoring.

1. The Senate confirmed Gorsuch with Democratic votes for the "Garland" seat. If they weren't willing to burn it down for that, then it isn't about them.

2. But for Dr. Ford coming forward, Kavanaugh would be on the Court right now. He was sailing through confirmation.

I just don't see the evidence for "they will do this to any nominee," and I see a decent amount of evidence cutting the other way.

I completely disagree. The Dems had no ability to hold up Gorsuch, so they didn't. The argument for delaying any Republican nominee at this stage is the midterms. To me, it's clear.

Now, I'm a "to the victor goes the spoils" kinda guy, so I think what McConnell did in 2016 was BS just like I think the Dems delay strategy this year is BS. But for what it is, it seems fairly transparent to me.

[larrymcg421]

Barrett and Hardiman would both get through, with the former having a more contentious hearing. Collins would naively say that neither of them will overturn Roe, when I think they are all more likely to overturn it than Roberts.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I completely disagree. The Dems had no ability to hold up Gorsuch, so they didn't.

The Dems also have no ability to hold up Kavanaugh. But for some GOP Senators, he'd already be confirmed.

[Ksyrup]

Agreed, but based on the timing, they decided to play the best hand they could to try to delay until the midterms, in hopes that the results would alter the balance of power before the nomination could be confirmed. My point is, they had no such potential end game in 2016 so they let Gorsuch go. It may not be a winning hand, but they stretched it out as best they could. Perhaps if they had come up with something more substantive (in terms of evidence), they would have succeeded.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

IDK if sailing through includes sound & fury & 90% of Dem Senators voting against her, but day one of his nomination before all this stuff I was hearing how Kavanaugh would ban abortion due to his Catholic faith, and Barrett is also Catholic.

Wasn't a lot of it built around all those documents that were needlessly marked as confidential and not provided to the committee, as well as a ton of documents also only having been provided at the last minute?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Just off the top of my head, I think that Hardiman would get the Gorsuch treatment--sound and fury at the hearing, but ultimate confirmation with some Dem votes.

I agree Hardiman would probably get the most bipartisan support and seems to align closest to my views from that list, (plus he's a non-Ivy Leaguer from the Boston suburbs!), but he was also nominated to the Circuit Court back in the innocent less partisan days of the Bush Administration, when Circuit Court vacancies weren't yet a political battleground & competency alone seemed to be enough.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Logan

Wasn't a lot of it built around all those documents that were needlessly marked as confidential and not provided to the committee, as well as a ton of documents also only having been provided at the last minute?

Barrett or Kavanaugh? Before the personal stuff came up the documents were a huge issue during the initial judiciary committee hearing for Kavanaugh (with Booker & Harris kind of playing to the 2020 Dem electorate, Cornyn from Texas iirc threatening Booker with disbarrment from the Senate, etc), but the 3 places the Dems seemed to be planning to attack were his partisanship during the Clinton impeachment, his belief in nearly absolute Presidential authority (when Dems are really hoping they can impeach Trump in 2019-20), and most importantly the belief he'll overturn Roe v Wade (which they've tied in to his Catholic faith and wanted personal correspondence released, because he's not on record much there).

I confess I wasn't paying attention during Barrett's confirmation process to know how it started, though she put a lot of stuff out in public law review articles when at Notre Dame, and the questions from Feinstein seemed centered on those. That NYT "bombshell"?/claim was put out very late in the process - I suspect if she's nominated for the SC a lot of people who've never heard of People of Praise (I sure hadn't - don't get mad Butter) would have very strong opinions on them quite quickly.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Agreed, but based on the timing, they decided to play the best hand they could to try to delay until the midterms, in hopes that the results would alter the balance of power before the nomination could be confirmed. My point is, they had no such potential end game in 2016 so they let Gorsuch go. It may not be a winning hand, but they stretched it out as best they could. Perhaps if they had come up with something more substantive (in terms of evidence), they would have succeeded.

The conspiracy behind the timing is interesting. It seems to suggest months ago Dems in power knew all this info on Kav, they thought it so truthful they then thought how to weaponize it. The Dems secretly decided to hold off, knowing Ford will testify, others will come forward and the public to will be outraged. That's seems like a lot, for a group that was remarkably flaccid during Garland and Gorsuch and a president who is very good at controlling the narrative.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Agreed, but based on the timing, they decided to play the best hand they could to try to delay until the midterms, in hopes that the results would alter the balance of power before the nomination could be confirmed. My point is, they had no such potential end game in 2016 so they let Gorsuch go. It may not be a winning hand, but they stretched it out as best they could. Perhaps if they had come up with something more substantive (in terms of evidence), they would have succeeded.

Your point is wrong.

Pre-Trump GOP members are having real problems with today's political climate. It's not so easy to just blame Democrats for everything and claim "both sides" have problems and call it a day, like it used to be when the Clintons were the easy boogeyman. Hell, Kavanaugh himself used them, something that seemed straight out of a Fox News talking points memo. This BS will keep going on and on like this until some people break from the right and join the center and stop the toxic partisanship that is gripping the country.

It's just not both sides. If you want to keep deluding yourself that it is, then feel free. It sounds like you are almost already there.

If you can't see that there is anything wrong with Kavanaugh the nominee based on his demeanor and answers at the Congressional hearings vs. what has been revealed about him (sexual assault allegations notwithstanding) elsewhere, then we'll have to agree to disagree. Vehemently.

An absolute bonus is that there are mid-terms coming up. But it could be argued that Trump brought this on himself, as it appears that Kennedy was trying to beat the mid-terms by retiring when he did.

The intimation that is there that I wish people would just come out and say, is that the Democrats had some hand in totally making up these charges. If that's the case, then just come out and say that's what you think happened instead of beating around the bush.

[Ksyrup]

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means they came up with the best delay tactic they could on the fly, struck gold with Ford and held it as long as they could so that a proper investigation couldn't be done over a month before the confirmation hearings.

Perhaps in a perfect scenario for the Republicans, the Dems would have had nothing and just opposed on the merits of his positions. However, Ford came along and changed the equation - which they knew early on. Whether or not she testified, this was going to be the hill the Dems died on. But, the power of politics being what it is, all it proves to me is that even the Dems didn't give a crap about Ford - they knew she would be forced to testify in front of the nation and still went down that path.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

That NYT "bombshell"?/claim was put out very late in the process - I suspect if she's nominated for the SC a lot of people who've never heard of People of Praise (I sure hadn't - don't get mad Butter) would have very strong opinions on them quite quickly.

You can fuck off.

The point was that many classmates of Kavanaugh's say that IN THEIR CIRCLE the phrase was known to mean male-male-female sex.

But I am sure I am just being irrational and a partisan hack, and I'm sure ol' Brett was being super-truthful and naive, like when he totally didn't start a bar fight or wrote a letter about being a loud, obnoxious drunk.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Butter

Your point is wrong.

Pre-Trump GOP members are having real problems with today's political climate. It's not so easy to just blame Democrats for everything and claim "both sides" have problems and call it a day, like it used to be when the Clintons were the easy boogeyman. Hell, Kavanaugh himself used them, something that seemed straight out of a Fox News talking points memo. This BS will keep going on and on like this until some people break from the right and join the center and stop the toxic partisanship that is gripping the country.

It's just not both sides. If you want to keep deluding yourself that it is, then feel free. It sounds like you are almost already there.

If you can't see that there is anything wrong with Kavanaugh the nominee based on his demeanor and answers at the Congressional hearings vs. what has been revealed about him (sexual assault allegations notwithstanding) elsewhere, then we'll have to agree to disagree. Vehemently.

An absolute bonus is that there are mid-terms coming up. But it could be argued that Trump brought this on himself, as it appears that Kennedy was trying to beat the mid-terms by retiring when he did.

The intimation that is there that I wish people would just come out and say, is that the Democrats had some hand in totally making up these charges. If that's the case, then just come out and say that's what you think happened instead of beating around the bush.

Yeah, we'll just have to disagree that this is a Republican-only problem. I am anti-Trump, didn't vote for him before and certainly will not in the future. I'd be happy if he resigned tomorrow. So my comments are not politically slanted in an attempt to come off as unbiased. I haven't voted for a Republican for President since before Obama - haven't brought myself to vote Democrat either, but that's probably more on them than me at this point. I do think it's laughable that you think "joining the center" simply means switching my vote to the other party, though. Seeing US politics in this simplistically stupid, black and white, them or us way is how we got where we are, IMO.

I don't really have an opinion on Kavanaugh, mainly because whether it's him or someone else just like him, it doesn't change much in the grand scheme of things. I'd be perfectly fine with him being replaced at this point. Once you've become as disillusioned with the entire political spectrum as I have, it's hard to argue for character when the votes/decisions are still going to come out the same in the end. Who's character are we judging anyone against these days, anyway? They are all unprincipled scumbags.

As for the last point, I don't believe Dems made this up at all. I believe they are guilty of using Ford and contributing to the unfortunate experience she's had to go through in front of the country, but I haven't seen anything that suggests some big conspiracy to have her lie about this incident. I agree that opinion's out there, but that's not my opinion.

I've already said I believe something happened to her. I don't have enough evidence on either side to judge whether he or she is lying about that specific incident. Just because the dude partied a lot doesn't make him an attempted rapist. So on the flipside, this idea that yearbooks, calendars, and 35 year old letters somehow "prove" her allegations, is likewise an untenable position to hold, IMO.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Butter

This BS will keep going on and on like this until some people break from the right and join the center and stop the toxic partisanship that is gripping the country.

It's just not both sides. If you want to keep deluding yourself that it is, then feel free. It sounds like you are almost already there.

Originally Posted by Butter

You can fuck off.

The point was that many classmates of Kavanaugh's say that IN THEIR CIRCLE the phrase was known to mean male-male-female sex.

But I am sure I am just being irrational and a partisan hack, and I'm sure ol' Brett was being super-truthful and naive, like when he totally didn't start a bar fight or wrote a letter about being a loud, obnoxious drunk.

And the point that KSyrup has been making and I piled on to is that him saying he hasn't heard of something isn't saying Kavanaugh hadn't heard of it. Getting super emotional and yelling at us doesn't help your contention that Democratic supporters are truthful angels and partisanship is now a one sided problem...

[tarcone]

Had an interesting conversation with a guy at work today. He a very left leaning Dem.
He doesnt believe Ford, stating reconstructive memory. No one can remember exactly what happened that long ago. He said this is how you go after these guys. You hit the tabloid aspect of it. Sex is what people respond to and listen to.
He believes Kavanaugh should not be on the SC, which I agree with, but his reason was one I wasnt aware of.
Seems Kavanaugh was heavily in debt. He had $250k in credit card debt (baseball tickets), that was paid off in the last couple years. Guy couldnt pay it off before, but somehow it went away. Well, we all know how it got paid off. But people wont respond to accounting and math. They will respond to sex.
Same thing happened in the Greitens case. Had to bring sex into it to make people pay attention to all the dark money that guy was getting.

Sad commentary on our society.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Had an interesting conversation with a guy at work today. He a very left leaning Dem.
He doesnt believe Ford, stating reconstructive memory. No one can remember exactly what happened that long ago. .

What does your friend from work do for a living?

[tarcone]

He is a teacher. I know where you are going. But memory is a complicated thing. And like unset cement, it is vulnerable for the first few hours after an event. While I believe something happened to Ford, I think she is going after the wrong person. As most of her testimony indicates.

Again, Kavanaugh is not the right guy for this position, but I think he is a victim of a witch hunt. The left should have gone after his financial issues to show he is unfit.

But as I said, the average person isnt interested in finances like they are tabloid stories.

[Lathum]

Well if you know where I am going you shouldn't have used that silly anecdote in the first place.

[tarcone]

The point is, that memories can change, especially if you are being coached. Again, I believe something happened to her. I also believe that the dems coached her into thinking who it was.

I think this is a witch hunt, and the dems should be going after him about his finances.

Im not sure why there is such a feeling that he did this. But there is no evidence that supports her claims.

The dems missed their chance when the went all in on this claim. It was a colossal misplay that further divides the country. Then again, I think this is the agenda for the left. Divide and conquer.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by tarcone

The point is, that memories can change, especially if you are being coached. Again, I believe something happened to her. I also believe that the dems coached her into thinking who it was.

I think this is a witch hunt, and the dems should be going after him about his finances.

Im not sure why there is such a feeling that he did this. But there is no evidence that supports her claims.

The dems missed their chance when the went all in on this claim. It was a colossal misplay that further divides the country. Then again, I think this is the agenda for the left. Divide and conquer.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

The LEFT wants to divide and conquer? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA (now if you said, the fringes on both sides want to do that, you MAY have a bit more of a point, )


And she does have evidence that there was an assault, the years of therapist notes long before this became an issue.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Then again, I think this is the agenda for the left. Divide and conquer.

This may be the most ludicrous thing I have read in this thread.

Have you not noticed the overall climate in this country since November 2016? Do you think it's a coincidence?

People may have not liked Obama, but he NEVER used the kind of rhetoric Trump does to divide the country.

[JPhillips]

There a couple of unfounded accusations being made.

1 - Ford has never claimed to have repressed memories. She has been clear she remembered the event from the time it happened, she just didn't tell anyone until much later.

2 - There is no evidence of any coaching by Dems, and if there was it would have had to have happened years ago, before she told her therapist. How exactly would that have worked?

[NobodyHere]

The left has done its share of fanning political flames.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by tarcone

. Then again, I think this is the agenda for the left. Divide and conquer.

Originally Posted by Lathum

This may be the most ludicrous thing I have read in this thread.

Have you not noticed the overall climate in this country since November 2016? Do you think it's a coincidence?

People may have not liked Obama, but he NEVER used the kind of rhetoric Trump does to divide the country.

God no shit, can his post be any more tone deaf and oblivious to the level this admin has taken that agenda to?

[RainMaker]

Just Fox News poisoning. It inflicts many.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

God no shit, can his post be any more tone deaf and oblivious to the level this admin has taken that agenda to?

I can't even imagine what kind of bubble someone lives in that they actually think the left is the reason for the division we have ( not the FAR left, fringe supporters on either side are always responsible for a certain level of division). Not to mention their example of why Ford isn't credible is that one dem from work who is completely unqualified to make an assessment on her testimony thinks she is confused.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Just Fox News poisoning. It inflicts many.

yep.

My mother in law suffers from it.

I am currently in my own personal hell. We just sold our house in Oregon and have been staying with my in laws since July waiting to buy a house in NJ. She has Fox News on all day and any time you try and have a discussion with her all she does is regurgitate the shit she hears. She doesn't even realize she is doing it.

I have started wearing earbuds and listening to the radio because I can't take it.