(06-22-2020 08:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In terms of the three points you put up there, perhaps *you* should note that in every case in creation, the overall goal has been to 'redo' the election of 2016. You act as though there is an overgrowth of objectivism in the above from both you personally, and from your entire set of of brothers in arms.

As I just wrote to 69/70/75, this isn't my take at all. Replacing Kavanaugh with a similarly conservative justice doesn't redo anything. Replacing Trump with a more competent and actually conservative POTUS doesn't redo anything (and Pence's favorability ratings are better than Trump's).

(06-22-2020 08:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  From another stance, there is zero objectivism. What do you think that the trial by ambush of Kavanaugh looks like? Seriously? Considering the very long history of the progressives and Democrats to 'take out' any and all Republican SCOTUS nominees, and the *fact* the politicization of the SCOTUS process to a vast, vast degree lays at the doorstep of the progressives, please dont climb on your gd soapbox at this juncture about Kavanaugh.

Had the progressives even fing bothered with presenting even an iota of corroboration, perhaps the 'hive minds', as you seemingly state this side on the forum is, wouldnt be such a hive mind. Couple the complete lack of corroboration (even from people she named as being there), with the massive history of nothing but obstructionism from the Democrats for twenty years in *any* republican SCOTUS nomination (I mean, Alito only getting 58 votes? Gorsuch 54? be fing serious) --- well, too fing bad for that pushback.

Fox & Friends ladies and gentlemen!

(06-22-2020 08:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But, if the choice is confined to OMB and the grotesque form that Democrats have embraced in 'progressivism', well at least I know which one I can adjudge to be less rancid than the other.