That sounds like a stereotype to me.


I wasn't trying to correct your opinion... I was simply pointing out the redundancy of your language. I even provided a suggestion that I thought would have better represented what you were trying to say. Call it constructive criticism.


You weren't "correcting" anything debeda... You were tenaciously arguing my correction with more incorrect assumptions, which I clearly illustrated. Look, forget I said anything OK?

OK... so you're proving yourself to be a racist who thinks passing laws is the only way a Senator can so anything substantial... Got it.

And here's yet another example of baseless blabber... You just toss out "scientific method" like it's a magic phrase that's supposed to be the end-all. I'll put aside the fact that "scientific method" only applies to scientific theories and explain what you're missing.

Here are the "six steps" of the scientific method...

Step 1: Ask a question. (dugh)
Step 2: Do background research. (to prepare for step 3)
Step 3: Construct a hypothesis. (to prepare for step 4)
Step 4: Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment. (an experiment provides a way to OBSERVE a result)
Step 5: Analyze the data and draw a conclusion. (in other words, OBSERVE the results and make your conclusions from that OBSERVATION)
Step 6: Share your results.

So, if your bent on using the scientific method to prove something, you are still relying on observations, which makes it... (that's right), EMPIRICAL.


That's all on you debeda. I have NEVER claimed to be a brilliant person. You just keep giving me opportunities to prove you wrong. Maybe that says more about you than it does about me.

It's hard to believe he was being truthful because any conversation about Mueller's investigation should have been significant enough for him to remember (unless he's an idiot) I find it far more likely that he wanted to confer with his advisors before giving a false answer. I tend to agree with you Peter... I think all the lame excuses and distractions put up by conservatives is more about downplaying the significance of Kavanagh's controversies for the sake of just getting a hard-right conservative on the bench.

We can already see how Republicans are circumventing the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution. When a law is needed to ensure justice, Republican law-makers sit on their hands while conservative judges say it's not their job to legislate. This is how companies have been allowed to force their employees into arbitration agreements which effectively removes the workers rights provided by the government.

Seriously? The Senate has been under Republican control since 2017 which is when Harris took office, so that seems like a stupid question to me. And how exactly is that related to her role in the confirmation hearings anyway? It seems to me that you're inability to dispute her effectiveness on the committee is leaving you grasping at straws.

Why do you insist on playing the fool? I already explained why the answer *should* have been very easy to answer. Harris wasn't asking about ANY conversation... She was asking specifically about conversations he may have had about Mueller and his investigations. And considering Kavanaugh's position on the U.S. Court of Appeals, ANY such conversation SHOULD have been regarded with utmost care... at least enough to remember who he spoke with and why.

His delayed answer either proves he can't be trusted with confidence (because he can't remember who he had critical conversations with) or that he was uncomfortable with telling the truth, which again proves he can't be trusted. Harris nailed him. She knows it... He knows it... and the entire committee knows it. The question now is whether enough senators are willing to dismiss it.

'seems like a pointless analogy to me, but I guess if it makes you feel better...

If you understood the senator's line of questioning you would know there isn't anything bizarre about it, in fact you would know that Kamala was looking for more than a simple "yes" or "no". It's not uncommon, especially in the context of judgment (which is what a hearing is), for a question to require a simple "yes" or "no" answer as a way to confirm a much larger answer. The fact that Kavanaugh couldn't answer the question until the next day was precisely the confirmation Harris was looking for.

The reason why "leftys" keep referring to this line of questioning is because unlike the #me-too circus, Kavanaugh's relation to the ongoing investigations into the Trump campaign is a critical aspect of his nomination. When Kamala Harris was elected to Senate, she took an oath the protect the Constitution and that is exactly what she was doing with her questions. The Constitution divides the government into three branches to provide checks and balances which is precisely why Congress is tasked with confirming a president's nomination to the Supreme Court in the first place. It's therefore the sworn duty for Congress NOT to confirm Kavanaugh if there is a link between him and Trump that allows Trump to overstep his constitutional bounds.

So you're making excuses for not challenging my logic. Why don't you just say you disagree with me then and leave it at that?


Where did I say Trump's efforts is destroying the republic? Look, you can't expect to challenge anyone's logic if you're going to resort to fallacy. What I said (and it wasn't on this thread) is that Trump's efforts are an attack on the republic, that doesn't necessarily mean the attack is having any effect.

The other thing to realize is that I am very specific with my language. So when I refer to our republic, I am not referring to data-spewing systems like our economy; I am referring specifically to the rules and the structure of what makes our government a representative republic.

Also, since I'm already lecturing you anyway... "empirical" and "proven" are essentially the same thing. Maybe you meant to say "proven or anecdotal"?

Being a sanctuary state doesn't cost anything (you don't have to pay a fee to say no) but I guess it doesn't matter to a mindless rant... If I thought there was anything more to your argument, I would point out that the U.S. is the largest economy in the world but also has the highest national debt in the world but alas, there's usually no point in contesting a rant with facts.

Your poor son.

The term is "BOLD faced lie" and that's not a suitable description. I'll concede that what I said is not entirely true, which is why it was only an off-handed joke to Morgan, but it's based on a generalized impression that conservatives leave us with because of their constant reference to personal gain. Take entitlements for instance; liberals tend to see this as a feature of an altruistic society where less fortunate people are cared for but conservatives see it as a people looking for hand outs. (personal gain). And don't tell me you haven't heard conservatives say they don't think they should have to pay taxes to pay for someone else's health care.

So, Jean if you're offended by the statement, maybe you should consider the attitudes that inspire it.

There have been 790,830 bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2017 alone... Are you actually trying to make a case that Democrats are the only ones? 'cause that's just hilarious. The point that you seem to be missing is that Morgan was referring to Trump not just people in general and she was referring to Trump because YOU implied that as a businessman he is better for our country than a community organizer who has never even run a front yard lemonade stand."

I got some news for you my friend... Our government is NOT a business. If it were a business, everything would be infinitely easier and I'm sure that's why this short-sighted notion that a businessman is what the government needs has gone viral since Bush. It's like telling someone who needs open-heart surgery they should dump the doctors and let a pit crew handle it because pit crews are very fast and efficient, but the problem is open heart surgery just isn't the same thing as changing tires... well a government, especially one based on democracy, isn't the same thing as a business either. The main difference being that a business has a very simple bottom-line on which all decisions are guided called the profit margin. This is NOT the case with a representative democracy which has to deal with resolving difficult conflicts that can't be resolved with simple math. The classic example (somewhat cheesy but it makes the point) being King Solomon's wisdom in dealing with the dispute between two women claiming the same child (if you remember the story).

Trump is failing right now... You folks don't see it because you're too busy being fooled by the snow job, but Trump's inability to move beyond simple-minded business mechanics is creating serious problems for our republic. Much of it is creating a sense of alienation among the Americans that he apparently has no regard for. To use the Solomonic analogy, rather than handle disputes the way King Solomon did, Trump's solution is simply to give the child to the woman he likes better, then writing off the complaints of the other woman as "fake news". This is why Trump doesn't address the union the way previous presidents did... Instead, he hold's rallies with his supporters while dismissing the concerns of others as "fake news"... It's because he can't handle the demands of the republic as a whole. He doesn't have the wisdom. He's a merchant not a king. I can provide other examples, such as pushing the national debt to record breaking levels, destroying the trust that other nations have had in our promises, reeking havoc on the businesses that are suffering from his trade wars, allowing the destruction of the environment and agitating international conflicts, but I think I've made my point.

Saying you challenge someone's logic and actually doing it are not the same thing debeda.

You people try so hard to make excuses for him. Harris explicitly asked if he had discussed Mueller or his investigation with anyone at Kasowitz, Benson & Torres..." Think about this for a second... We're not talking about water cooler conversations here... The Mueller investigation is probably the highest profile investigation into the presidency since Watergate and Kavanaugh is a judge on the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals. Do you actually think ANY discussion about Mueller and his investigation that Kavanaugh may have had with ANYONE at a law firm contracted by the president would be so insignificant that it would slip his mind?" Oh excuse me, I can't remember if I discussed the investigation with anyone from that company... there are so many of them... Let me go home and look at the roster." (Yeah, right). Harris didn't ask for names, she simply asked if he had that discussion with ANYONE at Kasowitz, Benson & Torres. The only way any such conversation could possibly slip his mind is if he's senile or a complete moron. I don't think he's either of those things which leaves us with no where else to go but the assumption that he was stalling for time to confer with advisors to see if he could get away with lying.

Harris got exactly what she needed from that question.