US politics general thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Randhir said:
Examples please.
Click to expand...
You have a witness that claims someone called them and tried to influence them. With some telephone records, back up evidence. That's a credible claim that needs investigation.

You have a witness that claims someone was drunk 40 years ago when they were drunk themselves in a setting where everyone was drinking and might or might not have been drunk. Not credible
 
rietrot said:
You have a witness that claims someone called them and tried to influence them. With some telephone records, back up evidence. That's a credible claim that needs investigation.

You have a witness that claims someone was drunk 40 years ago when they were drunk themselves in a setting where everyone was drinking and might or might not have been drunk. Not credible
Click to expand...

So without that call record, you don't consider other witness testimony regarding an alleged incident credible?
 
Randhir said:
So without that call record, you don't consider other witness testimony regarding an alleged incident credible?
Click to expand...
If I claimed you send me a Whatsapp message/email/telephone call, whatever. Why would it be a problem for me to show that massage as evidence? It immediately removes the he said, she said nonsense.
 
rietrot said:
If I claimed you send me a Whatsapp message/email/telephone call, whatever. Why would it be a problem for me to show that massage as evidence? It immediately removes the he said, she said nonsense.
Click to expand...

That's not what I asked.
 
Randhir said:
It's a different thing if you lie under oath, then have multiple people refute what you said.

Just curious, are you against all witness testimony?
Click to expand...

So if the FBI finds he lied he will not be confirmed. So if he's confirmed what do we make of this then?
 
Randhir said:
That's not what I asked.
Click to expand...
The backup evidence makes it credible or not, because in this case there should be evidence and if there isn't it brings the claims into question.
 
Pitbull said:
So if the FBI finds he lied he will not be confirmed. So if he's confirmed what do we make of this then?
Click to expand...
He will most likely be confirmed anyway, because the lefties has lost all reason and just scream sexual assault.
 
Pitbull said:
So if the FBI finds he lied he will not be confirmed. So if he's confirmed what do we make of this then?
Click to expand...

I see you've nicely avoided your hypocrisy from the previous post. Nonetheless to answer your question:

Confirmation or not doesn't mean the allegations are true or false. None of us have any idea what happened 35 years ago, and he deserves the benefit of the doubt when the proof is her word against his.

However, he has proven that he is not an honest person, and lying under oath while testifying at a confirmation hearing should exclude him from being confirmed. I'm sorry, but that's exactly the position you would have if a Democrat-nominated judge would have lied at his confirmation hearing, and that would be my position if he was a Democrat-nominated judge who lied at his confirmation hearing. You'll deny both of those things, but that's out of my control.

rietrot said:
The backup evidence makes it credible or not, because in this case there should be evidence and if there isn't it brings the claims into question.
Click to expand...

Again, that's not what I asked. If you'd prefer not to answer the question, just let me know.
 
Randhir said:
I see you've nicely avoided your hypocrisy from the previous post. Nonetheless to answer your question:
Click to expand...


Another long winded post in order to avoid answering my question out right.

If he is confirmed, what does that say bout his "lies"
 
Randhir said:
And the right has lost all morals and have no compunctions attempting to vote in sexual predators.
Click to expand...
The right sees the smear campaigns and knows their morals is used as a tactics against them. It's getting old.
 
Pitbull said:
Another long winded post in order to avoid answering my question out right.

If he is confirmed, what does that say bout his "lies"
Click to expand...

Pitbull said:
Another long winded post in order to avoid answering my question out right.

If he is confirmed, what does that say bout his "lies"
Click to expand...

Wtf. I answered your question. Unless you were talking about a different set of lies. There have been a lot.
 
Randhir said:
Wtf. I answered your question. Unless you were talking about a different set of lies. There have been a lot.
Click to expand...

Nope you pranced around it again like you always do.

If he's confirmed, does that confirm that FBI didn't find that he lied?
 
Pitbull said:
If he's confirmed, does that confirm that FBI didn't find that he lied?
Click to expand...

The FBI doesn't even have to confirm his lies, they're blatantly obvious. Devil's triangle is not a drinking game, boofing is not farting, and 'ralphing' at 'beach week' is not a reference to Indian food, unless you think we're all stupid. The FBI should need to find something much more serious with which to block his nomination, because guess what - the GOP don't care. They all lie.
 
Pitbull said:
Nope you pranced around it again like you always do.

If he's confirmed, does that confirm that FBI didn't find that he lied?
Click to expand...
Are you retarded? He already has lied. As I said, you'll have to be more specific. Are you talking about the alleged rape or the other lies?
 
Randhir said:
Are you retarded? He already has lied. As I said, you'll have to be more specific. Are you talking about the alleged rape or the other lies?
Click to expand...

I think you're the retarded one. The Republicans said they will not confirm him if the FBI can prove that he lied. Which I have not seen to be the case yet. No matter what and how you interpret his evidence...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X