[Mega] MAGA Super Trump Mega Thread

triple said:
What is the potential downside to the FBI investigating her claims?

Even if they find NOTHING - I still fail to see why they shouldn't try at all.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with them investigating it, I'm saying that in this particular case it sounds like a complete waste of time and an obvious political ploy. It's also extremely short sighted, allowing an unfounded and uncorroborated accusation to derail the confirmation process. You will only create a scenario where every nominee winds up being accused.
 
Fool said:
Nobody cares about 3 days. We're just pointing out the obvious dirty political play designed to delay until after the midterms.
Click to expand...

I missed your outage when Republicans stonewalled the Garland nomination for 10 months until presidential power changed hands.

Was that dirty politics Fool or was that just strategic?
 
after he is confirmed i agree senate committee can investigate if

they would like the process is already intense confirming first is a

no brainer
 
Feinstine knew about this case in july 2 months before us


Shes the perfect person to run the senate committee

Very unbias source given that she never leaked the info in july!
 
Fool said:
I'm fine with them investigating it, I'm saying that in this particular case it sounds like a complete waste of time and an obvious political ploy. It's also extremely short sighted, allowing an unfounded and uncorroborated accusation to derail the confirmation process. You will only create a scenario where every nominee winds up being accused.
Click to expand...

Remind me what Garland was accused of to justify him not even receiving a hearing?
 
Fool said:
I'm fine with them investigating it, I'm saying that in this particular case it sounds like a complete waste of time and an obvious political ploy. It's also extremely short sighted, allowing an unfounded and uncorroborated accusation to derail the confirmation process. You will only create a scenario where every nominee winds up being accused.
Click to expand...

It's a couple of interviews and a report of their findings. This isn't deflategate. We're talking a week, max. And we're what.. 45 days in? The last time we had a scotus opening under Obama we waited 400+ days and as I recall republicans were telling me that was fine. You can spare a week or two.

Govt. should get to the bottom of this, if at all possible, question everyone involved under oath, and see what's what. Nothing wrong with that. It's a lifetime appointment, you fuck up in the next week, you've fucked up for the next 40 years.
 
phaytal said:
I missed your outage when Republicans stonewalled the Garland nomination for 10 months until presidential power changed hands.

Was that dirty politics Fool or was that just strategic?
Click to expand...

were the allegations that garland is a sexual deviant ever confirmed?

wasn't that the republicans justification?
 
triple said:
do interviews with people who might have heard about it
Click to expand...

agreed, and right after that I want to be interviewed when they investigate Hillary for shit because I heard about a lot of stuff she did when I was talking to people, listening to the radio, and reading reddit.

I am a legitimate witness!
 
phaytal said:
I missed your outage when Republicans stonewalled the Garland nomination for 10 months until presidential power changed hands.

Was that dirty politics Fool or was that just strategic?
Click to expand...

It was within their power to do so. It's not outrageous, though it was definitely outside the bounds of tradition. Obama could've nominated someone more conservative if he wanted someone confirmed during his term.

It's not exactly the same thing as what Feinstein did here. She sat on this since July, and then leaked it to the press after Ford made it crystal clear she wanted to remain anonymous. She did so at a point where it would be impossible to replace the nominee if you were inclined to before the midterms, unlike if she had leaked the information when she first received it. She threw Ford to the wolves in an attempt to tank a confirmation before hopefully taking control of the Senate.
 
We should investigate everyone with an acqusation against them regardless of the cost and time



Thats the entire point of metoo movement
 
Fool said:
It was within their power to do so. It's not outrageous, though it was definitely outside the bounds of tradition. Obama could've nominated someone more conservative if he wanted someone confirmed during his term.

It's not exactly the same thing as what Feinstein did here. She sat on this since July, and then leaked it to the press after Ford made it crystal clear she wanted to remain anonymous. She did so at a point where it would be impossible to replace the nominee if you were inclined to before the midterms, unlike if she had leaked the information when she first received it. She threw Ford to the wolves in an attempt to tank a confirmation before hopefully taking control of the Senate.
Click to expand...


So whats the difference? Same result

Plus this gives us more time to create an investigation
 
It's not exactly the same thing as what Feinstein did here. She sat on this since July, and then leaked it to the press after Ford made it crystal clear she wanted to remain anonymous. She did so at a point where it would be impossible to replace the nominee if you were inclined to before the midterms, unlike if she had leaked the information when she first received it. She threw Ford to the wolves in an attempt to tank a confirmation before hopefully taking control of the Senate.
Click to expand...

dirty tricks to block a scotus nominee? why I never
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top