import 4.code.options;
import 4.code.about;

class Header{

public void title(){

String fullTitle = "// - ";

public void menu();

public void board();

public void goToBottom();

public void refresh(a);

class Thread extends Board{
public void TopHouseDemocratvowstoinvestigateperjury,sexualassaultallegationsagainstKavanaugh(OP Anonymous){

String fullTitle = "Top House Democrat vows to investigate perjury, sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh";
int postNumber = "298181";
String image = "GettyImages-945958760.jpg";
String date = "10/07/18(Sun)13:46:19";
String comment = "Latest news being censored here

>Rep. Nadler will become the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee if Democrats win back the House in November.

The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee says he will investigate alleged perjury and sexual misconduct by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and slammed a “whitewash” probe completed by the FBI earlier this week.

The New York Times reported that Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who will head the Judiciary Committee if Democrats take over the House after November’s elections, said that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court is at stake, as the Senate prepared Saturday to confirm Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

Nadler made his remarks to The Times after a procedural vote that allowed Kavanaugh’s nomination to advance to the vote in the full Senate on Saturday.

“It is not something we are eager to do,” Mr. Nadler told The Times on Friday. “But the Senate having failed to do its proper constitutionally mandated job of advise and consent, we are going to have to do something to provide a check and balance, to protect the rule of law and to protect the legitimacy of one of our most important institutions.”

Kavanaugh, a conservative federal court judge, looks all-but-certain to be confirmed to the U.S. high court, despite a raft of sexual misconduct allegations.

Democrats also say Kavanaugh committed perjury in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee when asked about his past drinking and aggressive behavior with women, which they say should also disqualify him from sitting on the nation’s highest court.

“We have to assure the American people either that it was a fair process and that the new justice did not commit perjury, did not do these terrible things, or reveal that we just don’t know because the investigation was a whitewash,” Nadler said."

public void comments(){
if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298182 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)13:47:20")

"The Times reported in a separate story on Saturday that an FBI probe of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was limited by design, overlooking numerous key witnesses who might have shown light allegations of sexual misconduct against him.

The Times wrote that White House Counsel Don McGahn — who has shepherded the Kavanaugh nomination through the US Senate — vetoed efforts to launch a more exhaustive probe.

Throughout the night Friday and into Saturday, lawmakers held a marathon debate in order to meet the 30 hours of debate required by Senate rules before voting on the nomination.

But Kavanaugh’s expected confirmation is not the end of the story. Protesters pledged to continue to fight his nomination until the last vote is cast, with legions of demonstrators expected to turn out in Washington and across the country Saturday.

Then they vowed to turn their fury to ousting the senators who turned a deaf ear to calls that the nomination be scrapped after a bitter nomination battle that turned even more contentious over the past two weeks, after allegations about a sexual assault surfaced dating back to Kavanaugh’s high school days.

A flurry of additional reports of out-of-control drinking and aggressive behavior followed, lodged for the most part by people who knew Kavanaugh in high school and college. A cursory, confidential FBI probe into some of the allegations was completed this week, however, and Republican lawmakers said it found nothing to warrant yanking Kavanaugh’s nomination.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month that Kavanaugh tried to rape her at a party in the 1980s when both were teenagers.

Senate Democrats demanded that the FBI re-interview Ford, and listen to corroborating accounts from witnesses familiar with details of the accounts of two other accusers Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick, but investigators failed to do so."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298187 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)14:04:21")

"Yeah he's out of there the next time the dems get the senate. Doesn't matter if it takes 40 years, he's outta there like strike 3 on a high fastball.";

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298204 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)15:59:31")

You will forget about it within two weeks, just as Dems do everything else."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298206 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)16:15:16")

"If anything the dementors owe Justice Kavanaugh, his family and the entire country a formal apology for this deplorable political stunt";

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298207 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)16:19:11")

You make it sound like the Democrats aren't drawing up a longer and longer list of the wrong doing of Trump and the Republicans they're going to look into."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298218 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)17:23:48")


and this is why its important to vote Red in November"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298219 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)17:24:37")

any day now"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298222 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)17:39:11")

"Oh man. Please, PLEASE keep pursuing this. The enthusiasm gap disappeared over the course of this whole Kavanaugh circus, maybe if the democrats hold course straight to crazytown they'll completely shoot themselves in the foot. Thanks Nadler";

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298224 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)17:51:56")

Kavanaugh is the least popular supreme court justice to be nominated probably ever, for sure in this century. He's less popular than Bork was and Bork couldn't even get the support of his own party. The only reason Kavanaugh was able to get through is Republicans have thrown aside any appearance that they're acting in good faith and just forced him through anyway. Investigating credible allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh is not a losing proposition for Democrats and even if it does lose them some support its still the right thing to do anyway."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298226 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)18:02:28")

>Kavanaugh is the least popular justice...
Maybe to democrats and in Democrat polls. in the rest of the country including moderates he's actually a good pick.
But please, keep parading your idiocy all about the public square. Your "blue wave" is already gone, keep this up and the republicans might even pick up a seat or two."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298227 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)18:02:44")

>Investigating credible allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh is the right thing to do
Makes you wonder why they waited so long to start then."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298228 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)18:06:32")

Smart money is on nobody with a brain (that is including Feinstein) believing these allegations for even a moment. If they were credible in the slightest they would have been grilling kav on it the whole time.
Of course, voting Democrat relies on either an inability or unwillingness to think about what it is you're actually voting for, so it's no surprise that their base rabidly believes that Kavanaugh tried to rape this girl, participated in gang rapes, and literally anything else you could imagine accusing him of."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298229 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)18:07:34")

"Oh come on, just let it go.
We lost, he's in, end of story. Besides, it clear that he's already cleaned up his act and hasn't done anything in years. Just spin this as the Republicans protecting sexual predictors for fuel in the midterms and move on."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298230 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)18:09:29")

I guess that explains why three Republican Senators were on the fence in voting for him for like 2 weeks and one voted against."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298231 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)18:14:14")

>3 RINOs
>in any way representative of the voter
Do you think Collins and murkowski will hold onto their Senate seats? Because I think they're gonna get replaced by someone else for betraying their (very red) constituencies."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298232 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)18:21:02")

Kavanaugh is so unpopular with moderates that 3 "moderate" Republicans could hardly stomach voting for him.

Murkowski is an outsider, her story is kinda a badass actually. The Republican party already tried to primary her but after losing the primary she ran against the Republican who challenged her as a write-in candidate and won."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298234 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)18:25:24")

Yeah, pretty fucking dumb to throw away your write in victory over completely uncorroborated and entirely unverifiable allegations.

>so unpopular 3 couldn't stomach voting for him
Congratulations, your filthy smear campaign was effective enough to make the 3 resident fake republicans in the Senate show their true colors yet again. Shocking."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298265 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)20:10:55")

"dems and lefties are fucking insane. literally nothing was found against kav. these people truly believe in guilt before proven innocence";

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298266 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)20:12:35")

What an absolute joke, they're all hard core Republicans who are just attention whores pretending to be independent minded but always vote in lockstep with Republicans a vast majority of the time. Murkowski is probably the closest to a moderate, but she's still far right like the rest of them.

As for why Murkowski voted no, it's all politics are local where Murkowski has a much smaller voter base, so when a bloc of them came out to tell her to vote no. And she'd not going to spurn the group that helped her keep her job during that write in campaign.
But more importantly, she wasn't the deciding vote, if she were, you'd see a lot more pressure on her and she might have held ranks. Either way, Trump sees her vote as a betrayal of the Republicans, so it should be interesting to see what happens to her.

Although if and when the Democrats do a proper investigation into Kavanaugh and they do find sexual misconduct, it will cement Murkowski's reelection and condemn Collins and any Democrat who voted for Kavanaugh to either a primary or a brutal re-election.
Collins is now a top target for 2020 given how her opponent has at least 2 million dollars waiting for them."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298270 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)20:25:46")

>and any Democrat who voted for Kavanaugh to either a primary or a brutal re-election.
Manchin is the only Democrat who voted for Kavanaugh, and he's from a state where almost THREE TIMES as many people voted for Donald Trump as Hillary Clinton.

Literally every last one of West Virginia's fifty-five counties voted for Trump. The Democrats aren't going to primary him because it's literally just handing over a seat from an unreliable ally to a guaranteed enemy. Manchin's not going anywhere."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298272 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)20:51:22")

Nice that Kavanaugh had bipartisan support. Rare thing these days."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298273 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)20:56:13")

Ha ha ha ha! Say it with me, "Justice Kavanaugh!"

I cannot wait until abortion is illegal in this country and all you pussy hat wearing sky criers scurry back under the rocks from whence you came."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298281 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)21:13:27")

It's going to depend greatly on how much power the Democrats great and if they cut Manchin loose if he doesn't support them on critical legislation.I doubt the Democrats are going to stomach backstabbing in their ranks like they did with the Blue Dogs after 2008 where they were still wiped out in the end. But it's really going to depend on how far demographics shifts and if West Virginia finally learns coal has no future or social issues like when Roe v Wade is overturned to see if Manchin is still around."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298286 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)21:20:50")

He did worse than basically any Justice before him. Supreme Court Justices used to be passed by wide margins (often more than 80 Senators), Kavanaugh being passed by 52 is laughably bad and pretty much the only reason Manchin voted for him is because he's a pussy who didn't want to be the deciding vote"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298287 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)21:27:48")

Kavanaugh being on the Court is bad no matter how you feel about him. He's going to undermine the Court's appearance of impartiality just by being there. 5-4 rulings where he's the deciding vote will have an asterisk next to them. This very well could lead to the next Democratic Congress + President packing the court."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298288 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)21:35:41")

Not only that, if it does come out that Trump conspired with the Russians in their attack on America anyone he picks were be branded as a tainted justice and that not only increases the chances of Democrats packing the courts, but also just outright ignoring any 5-4 from the Republican Supreme Court because they could rightfully claim that Gorsich and Kavanaugh are tainted justices that shouldn't be on the supreme court to begin with, add to the fact that Merrick Garland's seat was stolen.
Any faith that the Supreme Court is not a partisan institution is now gone. The fact that Republicans went all in on someone like Kavanaugh is going to bite them in the ass."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298289 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)21:46:32")

no he isnt. the left has thrown everything they can so that something will stick, that is the left at fault at not kav. he has done absolutely nothing wrong. you cant kvetch about someone and then say they cant do something solely because you were kvetching about them"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298291 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)21:53:59")

>wrong doing

Elected President and Congress performing their lawful duties is wrongdoing?"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298292 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)22:02:59")

The President of the United States called Dr. Ford a credible witness after watching her testimony. Of course the current POTUS' frequently contradicts himself so his word isn't worth anything but if a good President like Obama had said that in regards to his own SC nominee it would have been taken at face value by every Reptilian Senator and Fox News would have run it 24/7 and probably there would be 0 votes to confirm."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298293 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)22:06:29")

Nobody forced him to give his "what goes around comes around" speech. He could have let the Republicans speak that for him, but no. Dude was understandably angry as hell but he chose deliberately to write that in advance. Go ahead and explain how that plus claiming the Clintons are out to get him wasn't a declaration of political intent."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298294 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)22:21:55")

these dumb jews are killing themselves.
it's gonna backfire big time.
Do it."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298296 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)22:23:14")

>He did worse than basically any Justice before him.
And who else was nominated to the Supreme Court during such a raucous presidency? Right on the doorstep of midterms, no less. I'm sure that if Gorsuch and Kavanaugh had switched places, Democrats still would have tried to pick a fight with Gorsuch (not like they didn't try, what with filibustering and an end vote of 54-45 with three democratic supporters), and the numbers would still be roughly the same. Why? Because it is not about who the person is, it's about who's backing the person.
I'm very certain that the Democratic senators who give a rat's ass about Kavanaugh as a person (much less as a judge) are few and far between. If they really wanted to paint Kavanaugh as unqualified for the Court, they would have used his past rulings against him. What do they do instead? They take snapshots of his teen and young adult years and try to use this as a reason why he can't be a competent judge, 28 years of law and a total of 30-some years later. This whole thing was piss-poor arguing at its finest and a total non sequitur."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298299 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)22:31:28")

>Congress preforming their lawful duties
They aren't doing that since they aren't preforming oversight of Trump and are proactively obstructing any attempt at oversight.
Notice it was the REPUBLICANS would compiled that list of what they think Democrats will do if they take back the House."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298302 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)22:36:24")

They did bring up his background though. They brought up that he implied Roe v Wade wasn't settled law because the SC could overturn it whenever there's a case that hinges on it. They also brought up that he may have lied under oath during a previous confirmation hearing when he said he didn't know about any documents stolen from Democrats. Kavanaugh was seen discussing the very same documents in emails while he was advising Judicial nominees on how to answer questions from Democratic Senators during confirmation hearings.

Also Republicans held on to a ton of documents regarding things Kavanaugh worked on during the Dubya Bush years. They released tens of thousands of documents all at once like 12 hours before the hearings began and didn't give Democratic Senators any time to review them, and concealed hundreds of thousands more of them. The confirmation hearing was a farce and the investigation was a sham. Also Kavanaugh probably lied under oath during the whole process."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298304 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)22:41:51")

>roe vs wade is not settled because the SC could overturn it
This is a factually true statement
>lying about docs
This is a new one, got a source for that claim pardner?"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298306 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)22:46:50")

Also a common problem with the Judicial nomination process is that there's a precedent for not answering questions. Judges have to appear impartial so they often avoid answering questions regarding cases. Honestly the process is almost pointless these days."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298309 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)22:52:40")

Congress does not have an "oversight" role as regards the President. They are independent and equal branches of government
What the Senate does have is an "advise and consent" role as regards Judicial (a third separate and equal branch, for your education) nomination. They just confirmed a nominee to the Supreme Court to this end.

But I'm curious. Could you explain "oversight" to me and that you expect these elected representatives to be doing differently?"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298310 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)22:53:07")

I wish that would be blown up and Senators would just assume what their answer were depending on if they do or don't answer.
it was a breath of fresh air to see Kamala Harris confront Kavanaugh on him not wanting the FBI to reopen the investigation and after trying a few times to get an answer, she just puts it into the record I’ll ‘Take That as a No’.

It would be great to see a senator ask them about a previous ruling and if they waffle on it, just to put it in the record that they disagree with it. Like that one Trump nominee who waffled on Brown v Board of Education, every just assumed she was against it after that.
It would be great to ask another Trump Nominee 'Do you think Dread Scott was correctly ruled?' and if they don't say no immediately, just beat them with it relentlessly."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298311 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)22:55:01")

>>lying about docs
>This is a new one, got a source for that claim pardner?

It came up very early on. The problem is its impossible to prove definitively that he knew the documents were stolen but he's seen discussing the very documents and the subject line of a few of the emails was "spying" and they mention there being a mole among the Democrats who got them the documents. The documents basically contained the Senate Democrats strategies for Judicial nominees so there's basically no doubt they were stolen. Democrats wouldn't want to share any of that information with Republican Senators."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298312 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)22:55:03")

Exactly what the Republicans said it was for.

Except this committee to be VERY busy if it returns to Democratic control."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298314 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)23:01:20")

Democrats weren't able to even really touch on the fact that Kavaugh was a full on conspiracy theories about Vince Foster and even pursauded Ken Starr to waste resources to harasses Vince Foster's daughter under the crazed conspiracy theory that the Clinton's had him murdered even after Starr himself said there was no merit to the conspiracy theory.

Between that and lying under oath about receiving stolen documents, Kavanaugh already had a lot of baggage, the sexual assault charges were just icing on the cake and the fact they told Ford 'We believe you, we just don't care' is probably going to have generational damage to the Republican brand for young women and Trump's attack on Ford only once again brings up all the allegations of sexual assault against him that Republicans still refuse to look into.

Kavanaugh's going to be a shit show and going to have another meltdown in front of congress screaming 'witch hunt!'. Mark my words."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298315 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)23:02:40")

>what the Republicans said it was for
I didn't ask what you think Republicans said. I'm asking what YOU think "oversight" means and what YOU think Congressmen should be doing differently."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298317 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)23:07:20")

>This Committee was very active during President Bill Clinton's term; it issued 1,052 subpoenas to probe alleged misconduct by the Clinton Administration and the Democratic Party between 1997 and 2002
>at a cost of more than $35 million
My opinion doesn't matter, only what the Republicans did and the precedent they set that the Democrats will use against them."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298318 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)23:15:26")

I don't know how the documents weren't a huge scandal. It's essentially like the digital equivalent of the Watergate break-ins."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298319 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)23:17:59")

Democrats are terrible at messaging wars and creating political issues out of criminal acts, while Republicans have mastered the art of the cover up."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298330 && dateTime=="10/07/18(Sun)23:58:01")

So they brought up an actual fact, and think he lied for knowing about documents but not necessarily the situation or status. From the answers I've read here (, I don't think he wholly knew. The willingness to accept and work with Miranda is fishy, as well as the nine straight months of near spot-on information, but the full emails were not disclosed, so I am not sure of his responses, only that Miranda seemed to be the ringleader and Kavanaugh was willing to tag along.

>Also Republicans held on to a ton of documents regarding things Kavanaugh worked on during the Dubya Bush years
That's republicans, not kavanaugh
>and concealed hundreds of thousands more of them
Kinda reminds you of a certain someone, but can we really prove that there are "hundreds of thousands more"?
>Also Kavanaugh probably lied under oath during the whole process.
As the saying goes here: Pics or it didn't happen.

>Honestly the process is almost pointless these days
I can agree with you there. The whole grilling has gone from "What are your thoughts on X, Y, and Z?" to "GOTCHA!", and not just for one party or the other."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298331 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)00:10:49")

Also, don't think Democrats are going to just investigate Trump, they've got pretty solid cases against Devin Nunes, Dana Rohrabacher, Duncan Hunter, Trey Gowdy, among others for abuse of power and general corruption.

Not him (inb4 you say I'm him, don't care.)
But as for the cover up on the hundreds of thousands of documents including Trump invoking executive privilege to hide some of them."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298343 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)01:05:28")

i wonder how much the false rape allegation probes cost, but youll probably blame that on republicans too for ordering it"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298344 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)01:06:16")

>Also, don't think Democrats are going to just investigate Trump, they've got pretty solid cases against Devin Nunes, Dana Rohrabacher, Duncan Hunter, Trey Gowdy, among others for abuse of power and general corruption
>thats where your wrong kiddo.jpeg"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298345 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)01:07:39")

i watched the hearings.
something like 7% of all documents available where blocked by executive privilege which is pretty average"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298352 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)01:36:59")

Doing a proper investigation to find the truth would cost less than spending months or years covering it up or running shame investigations like the Republicans do.
Kavanaugh ain't off the hook for being a rapists just yet friendo."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298359 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)02:17:52")

The Democrats will now have no qualms packing the SC because its integrity has already been destroyed by such blatantly partisanship. When the next blue wave comes (and it WILL come, even if its not in November), the Democrats will be out for blood."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298360 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)02:20:18")

> factually true
Also insane since by that logic literally nothing is "settled" law. Judges don't get to pick which laws to uphold. Officially anyway.

But yea, we were always gonna get a rightwinger. You don't get to be a judge or president in this country and be actually leftist. Obama is proof of that. We elected a black man and got a stealth version of Cheney. Given this reality I'd prefer overt Republicans. It focuses reformers. Just like I'd prefer more Trump to another neolib."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298364 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)02:29:54")

This, once the Republicans overturn Roe v Wade. All bets are off.
They're either going to pack the courts or just ignore what the Supreme Court says because their power is just something assumed, not given by the Constitution.

The problem is Trump is turning American into a kleptocracy. By supporting him, you just volentary put on the chains of American oligarchs while trying to cast off those of the globalists. At least the latter isn't trying to take everything you use away from you. And you can bet your ass Trump and the Republicans are going to be coming to destroy Medicare and social security if they have the chance."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298393 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)08:28:42")

I'm well aware of what they'll try to do, but trying it as Republicans gets a more or less appropriate response. The alternative, as Clinton and Obama spent terms proving, is either no response at all or active support from dupes that can't see past the party label on the can.

Trump has been almost exactly what I expected. Orders of magnitude better than another neolib. Though I fear neolib installation is imminent.

I don't actively support what I disagree with. But I won't be manipulated into pointlessly opposing my enemy's enemy either.

Lesser of evils voting is cancer. Trump is the current round of chemo. If the dem establishment hates it, they can detach from the corporate cock for five minutes and prove by not rigging the next primary."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298394 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)08:40:11")

They've lost it totally, only thing that will stop these people from destroying the country is war and putting them on trial for their crimes"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298401 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)09:15:58")

HIlarious when your side is willing to put sexually violent drunks on the scotus if it means Trump can pick a person who doesn't believe the President should be able to be subpoenaed or indicted."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298438 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)11:44:31")

>sexually violent drunks on the scotus
No evidence, no crime
Cry more"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298442 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)11:49:31")

Trump isn't chemo, he's straight up taking a chainsaw to you and because he's so blatant about it, you think ts' a good thing. This isn't an issue of corperations vs you. But liberal vs conservatism where conservatism hold all the power regardless of the power. The democrats need to actually embrace liberalism and democratic socialism aka New Deal again. The problem is that coalition got wiped out after the presidential election loses of the 1980s and the conservatives lead by Clinton took over the party.

If democrats become the party of liberal values, and thus the party of the people, you'll see things change for the better. But it doesn't help when the conservatives of both sides, Trump included, spend every waking moment demonizing them and the public eats it up."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298464 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)12:27:27")

>But liberal vs conservatism where conservatism hold all the power regardless of the power. The democrats need to actually embrace liberalism and democratic socialism aka New Deal again.
Chinese shills please go"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298467 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)12:39:44")

>Chinese shill
Is this the latest /pol/ forced meme?"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298468 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)12:41:41")

Accusing people of being shills is a classic /news/ past time, you're probably just used to Russia being used instead of China"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298478 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)13:00:32")

>Accusing people of being shills is a classic /pol/ past time
Fixed, don't force your cancer here."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298481 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)13:03:04")

Thank you Chang, for your continued support of The Party.
One cup instant noodle has been deposited in your safe"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298483 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)13:05:16")

>Fixed, don't force your cancer here.
If you're really going to pretend calling someone a russian shill or referring to them as "Ivan" isn't a rampant habit on /news/, you're outing yourself

Return to r/politics and stay there"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298493 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)13:23:09")

Save for a 2020 upset, trump might be the most liberal president we have for the next 50 years."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298497 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)13:35:10")

Ironic shitposting is still shitposting, return to whatever hole you crawled out of."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298516 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)14:06:07")

>once the Republicans overturn Roe v Wade. All bets are off.
I don't understand the obsession with Roe v Wade. It's clearly a terrible decision (unless you believe the constitution states or even implies third trimester somewhere) that impedes the states' granted ability to legislate. It wouldn't even make abortions illegal. It would allow states to make abortions illegal, which is where the power should rightfully lie."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298625 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)20:47:03")

It's the changing times. In the 1800's abortions were extremely common place because 'lol, conception?', so feminist of that era saw anti-abortion laws as a means of protecting women against necessity forced upon them by thoughtless men.
Of course now the argument is inverted due to the progression of women's rights, because re-alignments happen because before women were forced to get abortions against their will, now they are forced to carry fetus's to term against their will.
Prior to Roe v Wade, abortion was banned in 30 states, 16 required extreme circumstances (rape, incest, threaten motehr's life) and 4 where it was legal. So the idea that just putting it at the state level will just lead to religious groups to start attacking state legislators creating a further politicization of religious institution to the point where you could justifiably say they should be taxed.
Roe v Wade also created a very fine line so while abortion of legal, it was a 'I feel like I want to get an abortion today' free for all. Of course even this delicate balance the court struck was unacceptable to the right and it's why the religious right has become political and threw away any morals or values. Because they want Roe v Wade gone. Remember, half of white evangelicals outright said, Kavanaugh could be a rapist, and they'd still support him.

The repeal of Roe v Wade is going to be as a direct declaration of war against women's right for self-determination and I can't tell you how far reaching the fall out is going to be of that.."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298669 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)22:14:35")

The court only decides what is constitutional. In this case, states constitutionally have every right to outlaw abortions just as they have every right to make laws about any other stupid shit they want that isn't restricted by the constitution.
Roe v Wade was a political decision which triggered the same response from conservatives at the time as a repeal would now from liberals, but a repeal would only be a response to the original political move. It's a shame that everything has become so politicized that this piece of bench legislation is the standard of new justices.
If these people care about abortion legislation they should go to their legislators, not supreme court justices. And they should recognize that if a judge overturns a previous decision or piece of legislation it doesn't mean he disagrees with it, only that he believes it does not allowable by the constitution."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298675 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)22:25:38")

>Kavanaugh ain't off the hook for being a rapists just yet friendo.

He was never accused of rape."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298677 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)22:36:09")


Abortion is about to go the way of the dodo and there isn't a single thing the shitlibs can do about it. lol XD"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==298685 && dateTime=="10/08/18(Mon)22:48:11")

>Dems are utilizing the gish gallop in order to take down Trump

I'm sure it'll work this time, sweetie."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299068 && dateTime=="10/09/18(Tue)20:32:40")

>Trump conspired with the Russians

You sir, are an idiot. That ship sailed long ago. The only collusion was committed by HRC."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299070 && dateTime=="10/09/18(Tue)20:33:46")

>Merrick Garland's seat was stolen

thank joe biden"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299072 && dateTime=="10/09/18(Tue)20:40:17")

>Using the Biden meme
Intellectually and morally bankrupt as always Republicans"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299073 && dateTime=="10/09/18(Tue)20:42:58")

denial doesn't change the facts snowflake"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299076 && dateTime=="10/09/18(Tue)20:54:40")

"no luck finding that evidence then?";

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299077 && dateTime=="10/09/18(Tue)21:06:11")

>the "Biden Rule"
>Republicans cited a 1992 speech by then-senator Joe Biden, arguing that if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer, President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement, or else appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate.
>or else appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate.
Wow it's fucking nothing.
>if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer
...meaning this is a theoretical, never put into practice idea. This would be like Jim saying he's going to rob George's bank but never does it, and then years later George robs Jim's bank and uses Jim's statement to excuse his actions. It's an eye for a insult.

And if we're going by REAL precedence, then it's actually the Thurmond Rule, created by a Republican (Senator Storm Thurmond) to block an appointee by a Democrat (President Lyndon Johnson) in June of 1968, a much tighter time window than the Scalia vacancy (February). Even then, this "rule" is generally considered to be political bullshit with no legal basis done purely for partisan gain, and that the people who invoke it (left and right) will flip flop on it's usage depending entirely on political convenience.

In short, what the Republicans did was unprecedented in terms of time frame, and their claims that the Democrats did it first doesn't line up without making mountains out of molehills."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299078 && dateTime=="10/09/18(Tue)21:12:54")

Everyone keeps bringing up that Biden said he'd do it, but never the part that he didn't actually do it (because there was no open seat, the entire thing was a theoretical threat, aka political grandstanding). There's a world of difference between the two, it's the like one guy saying he'll kill someone vs someone who actually kills someone (and the first guy isn't even a credible threat because the person he's threatening doesn't even exist).

The actual political hack rule is the Thurmond Rule, which unfortunately can't be attributed to a Democrat which is why Republicans insist on fabricating a Biden rule. It also doesn't help that both the Biden Rule and Thurmond Rule only cover the summer, not an entire year, so even if these rules were accepted as legitimate and not the excuses of political hacks the Republicans were still setting the record for length of time for keeping the seat open without even having a hearing."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299080 && dateTime=="10/09/18(Tue)21:20:21")

>the post I made weeks ago
>word for word

Someone actually copies and saves the shit I write on this board? I don't know whether to be honored or concerned."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299085 && dateTime=="10/09/18(Tue)21:29:48")

You must be new here. This board has had frequent pro-Russia threads, linking russians sources and OPs with broken english for a long time. Actual russians post here, so it makes sense to joke about shills from there. This whole meme about chinese shills is just forced shit that only appeared after Trump claimed, with no evidence, that the chinese were after the midterm elections. And of course, /pol/luters follow whatever their cult leader says."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299086 && dateTime=="10/09/18(Tue)21:37:44")

I just remembered someone shooting down the Biden Rule meme before and searched 'biden rule' from the archive to pull the post, don't get to full of yourself.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299087 && dateTime=="10/09/18(Tue)21:37:46")


if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299100 && dateTime=="10/09/18(Tue)22:10:33")

You can't just impeach someone at a whim, they have to do something illegal. And unless the can provide evidence this took place then they don't have a cause to impeach him."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299101 && dateTime=="10/09/18(Tue)22:12:48")

>Investigating credible allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh

They aren't credible at all. The only thing the republicans did wrong was letting this circus show drag on for as long as it did and didn't just tell the democrats to fuck off."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299102 && dateTime=="10/09/18(Tue)22:19:12")

Kavanaugh is even more left wing than the last guy who was himself a center right swing vote. You honestly think that if Hillary was president right now she would have replaced Scalia with some staunch right winger to maintain balance. And a blue wave is never going to come until the democrats make some serious reform and try to bring back business dems and actual liberals that they've lost. No one wants Neoliberals or crazy socialists, it's why trumps in office in the first place.

>republicans overturn Roe v Wade
That's not going to happen moron. That has to be actually challenged by a new and conflicting case. Kav and the other Justices can't just go "oh that old ruling was wrong hehe this is the new one". Legal president doesn't work like that. And it can't be challenged unless there is another law it conflicts with."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299104 && dateTime=="10/09/18(Tue)22:21:55")

>/pol/ loves trump
reddit moron confirmed. /pol/ doesn't like anyone pro-israel like trump"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299105 && dateTime=="10/09/18(Tue)22:27:48")


*yawn* More Democratic posturing... Kavanaugh was appointed by Bush back in 2006 and the Democrats stalled him for 3 years ... if there was ANYTHING on Kavanaugh, they would have nailed him to the cross back then.

Move on Democrats."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299107 && dateTime=="10/09/18(Tue)22:32:01")

>Legal president doesn't work like that
Yes it does retard. All they have to do is say 'we know better' and strike down the old precedent"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299108 && dateTime=="10/09/18(Tue)22:33:01")

>/pol/ is full of hypocrites

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299111 && dateTime=="10/09/18(Tue)22:52:50")

">democrat aims to never be elected again";

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299112 && dateTime=="10/09/18(Tue)23:02:39")

Imagine being this deluded"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299127 && dateTime=="10/10/18(Wed)00:48:21")

>Legal president doesn't work like that.

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299128 && dateTime=="10/10/18(Wed)00:51:27")

I'll do you one better: precedent."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299564 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)05:41:39")

>boards where anyone can post anything at anytime is hypocritical
I guess"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299583 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)08:41:04")

"Chief Justice Roberts has referred ethics violations to be investigated by the 10th circuit"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299597 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)10:41:47")

Nah I kind of agree.
I've been browsing /pol/ since it was a 19th century newspaper read by Tories and printed by moots great great grandfather using his brothers printing press.
Most of the pro Israel stuff is a combination of redditors and JIDF"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299599 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)10:51:55")

"Blah blah blah. All hot air talk and nothing will happen";

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299623 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)11:24:51")

"In a more perfect world this would be an attempt by the loyal opposition to get the skeletons out and restore public confidence in the Court.

It's not. No matter what Nadler finds it will damage public faith in the Court even more. You have to wonder at what point these people realize that their posturing and politicking is doing nothing but eroding the legitimacy of their positions."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299644 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)12:52:01")

>It's not. No matter what Nadler finds it will damage public faith in the Court even more.

It will *now* because Kavanaugh is now permanently on the court. Now even if they find significant evidence of wrongdoing there's little chance the Republicans will cooperate with Democrats to remove him from the court. At best they might after dragging their feet for years and letting Kavanaugh overturn rulings they want him to first.

This is not the Democrat's fault and I do not blame them for wanting to investigate credible allegations of sexual assault. Even if doing the right thing stings, doing the wrong thing will ultimately hurt even worse."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299657 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)13:24:21")

/pol/ has been filled to the brim with pro-trump shit during the last couple of years, why are you pretending otherwise?
There's even never ending trump generals."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299717 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)15:22:45")

>10th circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

District of Colorado.
District of Kansas.
District of New Mexico.
Eastern District of Oklahoma.
Northern District of Oklahoma.
Western District of Oklahoma.
District of Utah.
District of Wyoming.

A confirmed right wing leading circuit, expect them to magically find nothing."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299721 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)15:37:04")


Any investigation that doesn't affirm your narrative will be unsatisfactory to you, so there's no reason to entertain your warped reality to begin with."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299723 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)15:46:00")

>Rig an investigation
>'Wow, why do people not believe the results'?

You do realize that if the FBI was given as much time as they needed, were allowed to interview everyone necessary and the Congress allowed the report to be made public that cleared Kavanaugh, you wouldn't still see this level of cynicism, right?
You just had the director of the FBI come out and say that the Republicans restricted the investigation.
That's why people aren't going to let this go and Democrats are going to open their own investigation into Kavanaugh if they retake power.

Also right wing judges are much more temperamental and biased. If you need a great example, the Republican judge for the Manafort trial in Virginia, the one who put his whole hand on the scale in favor of Manafort, is calling he and Mueller back to explain the plead agreement because, why not?"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299731 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)16:24:11")


>Not finding evidence proving false allegations means the other side rigged the investigation

Liberalism is a mental disorder"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299733 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)16:27:38")

there was no credible allegation of sexual assault.

a woman accuses a man of gang-raping her with a bunch of other men she can't name, thirty or so years ago. in support of her story, she trots out several people that deny that such a thing happened.

furthermore her story is nonsensical, as she apparently repeatedly attended parties where she knew there was apparently a history of sexual assaults. then, once she was sexually assaulted she didn't report it or mention it to anyone for several decades until the accused, a political opponent of hers and her benefactors, was up for a prestigious government post. at which point she comes forward to make this look as much like a political hit as possible

the FBI investigates, though what exactly they even COULD investigate who fucking knows, because it's been THIRTY YEARS. even if this theoretically happened there would be no evidence of like half the people and/or buildings that it even involved lmao"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299734 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)16:29:07")

long story short, he's innocent until proven guilty and there is no way that any evidence exists even though realistically this never happened, just like mattress girl and countless others who were lying for attention. sorry babe."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299763 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)17:31:07")

>This is not the Democrat's fault and I do not blame them for wanting to investigate credible allegations of sexual assault.
There haven't been any credible allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299770 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)17:44:09")

>Implying the charges of sexual assault weren't creditable and that's the reason the Republicans did everything to sabotage any investigation into them
Conservatism is a cancer to America."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299779 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)17:59:03")

Tell me what sort of smoking gun evidence that Kavanaugh tried to rape Ford you think the FBI was going to find if only they were able to interview magic witness X."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299813 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)20:11:57")

"Dying on every hill they can
Can't wait to see the 'Blue wave' putter out and die in time for midterms"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299815 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)20:21:59")

">instead of focusing on building the party's ideological goals the Democrats s are going to make their final stand on whether or not a 35 year sexual assault claim was true

This is ridiculous on so many levels, not only are they not appealing to Democratic voters who have become apathetic or distant to the party they are trying to revitalize the party by promising that, if they win, they will try to get to the bottom of these allegations.

That's there stand. Not war, not taxes, not infrastructure, fucking partisanship is all they are offering."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299820 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)20:39:21")

The dems should be out door to door taking about their positions and hoisting up charismatic figures for their party. Instead they are acting like /x/ tier tinfoilsers with their political conspiracies while ridding high on believing 'Not Trump" is enough for a sweep"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299850 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)21:42:57")

there was nothing to investigate, idiot, did you even watch the court hearings?
they interviewed so many people in the matter they had exhausted the witnesses Ford said could corroborate the story (none could) and they were down asking people who had not even heard of it until 35 years after the fact as second or third hand information"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299851 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)21:42:58")

Tell me how you're supposed to find smoking gun evidence, proving innocence OR guilt, with an investigation that was deliberately hobbled."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299852 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)21:43:31")

blue wave will be blue drizzle"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299876 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)22:17:03")

>they interviewed so many people
No they didn't in fact they ignored at least 25 people.

Well, you had Republicans who weren't drinking the kool-aid, and even Fox News said Ford was a creditable witness. So that's a pretty good start to have a proper investigation. Oh wait, you can't have that because the truth might actually be Kavanaugh is a rapist and that would look bad for Republicans. better cover it up and hope no one comes looking."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299880 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)22:21:55")

they interviewed 40.
there were only supposedly 5 people at the party.
they interviewed 8x the number of people who were even potential witnesses, Id say they did a pretty good job.
its really funny how the tinfoil hat conspiracy tables have turned"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299883 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)22:28:31")

>Literal nobodies desperate for the begging for anyone to hear that the FBi interview them because they want to say the accused is a rapist.
What possible smoking gun could any of them have that would bring evidence to this? Even more damming why the fuck did 25 people know about a rape and do nothing about it until now?"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299888 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)22:39:03")

>No they didn't in fact they ignored at least 25 people.
All of these 25 people, other than Kavanaugh and Ford, only had hearsay or character evidence to offer and were of completely worthless evidentiary value when it comes to figuring out what whether Kavanaugh actually tried to rape Ford."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299889 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)22:40:40")

>they interviewed 40.
Where are you getting that? Everything I'm seeing says they did 9 "comprehensive interviews.""

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299894 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)22:57:38")

what's the difference between hearsay and corroborating witness testimony, and how do we know which is which for each witness?"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299896 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)23:02:53")

His ass, like everything else Kavanaugh apologists pull their sources from"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299898 && dateTime=="10/11/18(Thu)23:25:21")

How does it feel giving into hysteria? Legit curious"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299930 && dateTime=="10/12/18(Fri)01:57:56")

Actually, yes. I'd prefer a chainsaw attack I'm fully ready to fight than some cancer I'm ignoring for whatever reason. I also agree that leaning actual left is the dnc's only chance, but the thing is, they don't want to actually win. Neolibs work for the rich, like everyone else.

Power has to come first, a stone with good intentions is morally equivalent to an evil one."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299931 && dateTime=="10/12/18(Fri)02:03:44")

How does it feel to be a blind zealot? Legit curious"

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==299963 && dateTime=="10/12/18(Fri)05:04:04")

I'm not the one trying to trot out 35 year old accusation to stall a Supreme Court Justice's confirmation as an anti-democratic attempt to force my will though.

You are. You're objectively a horrible person who refuses to aknowledge inconsistencies in the narrative that Kavanaugh raped a woman and that this same women waited until a month maybe until the "trauma of those events caught up to her".

You're mad."

if(Anonymous && title=="" && postNumber==300011 && dateTime=="10/12/18(Fri)08:51:15")

This sounds fine to me. Ford was able to wait 3 decades before bringing up charges, so it's clear her and the other decades old charges can wait a bit longer.
If Democrats want to investigate Kavanagh for the next 30 years, go for it. My only request would be they pay the court costs out of their campaigning budget, and not the taxpayer budget."