Anyone else notice?

[anonymoose]

How many of those articles have you actually read?

All.

And can you grasp why they are anti-Kavanaugh?

Of course. Most are from NYT, HuffPo, etc. The pro Kav ones are from WSJ, Investor's Business Daily, etc. There's very few media outlets that aren't slanted one way or another.

 

[anonymoose]

How much you wanna bet they close down the comments section?

WaPo doesn't have a comments section. At least for this topic.
This is interesting:

New York Times deletes Twitter poll asking if Ford’s testimony is ‘credible
https://nypost.com/2018/09/27/new-y...ll-asking-if-fords-testimony-is-credible/amp/

 

[Teflon Don]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...she-linked-to-kavanaugh-was-in-2008-not-2012/

She says that the seminal event that led to these memories coming up were a big fight over a remodel she and her husband did in 2012. That was in her opening statement and it was in her sworn testimony.

The thing is, according to building permits the work was done in 2008.

 

[Old Trapper]

All. Of course. Most are from NYT, HuffPo, etc. The pro Kav ones are from WSJ, Investor's Business Daily, etc. There's very few media outlets that aren't slanted one way or another.

Admit it. You haven't read many articles as to why civil rights groups, unions, and most constitutional scholars, have opposed the nomination of Kavanaugh. Forget about the Ford allegations. Look at his opinions on the power of the Presidency, torture, gerrymandering, etc.

 

[anonymoose]

Admit it. You haven't read many articles as to why civil rights groups, unions, and most constitutional scholars, have opposed the nomination of Kavanaugh.

Pretty much already did . Apparently you skipped the OP. I specifically said the articles I saw in Yahoo! News.

Forget about the Ford allegations. Look at his opinions on the power of the Presidency, torture, gerrymandering, etc.

You're changing the subject of the OP. At this point his confirmation no longer has anything to do with his positions.
And personally I no longer think Ford has anything to do with it either. His confirmation looks like a done deal to me.
I'm just commenting here, not taking sides other than the side of fairness.

 

[Old Trapper]

Pretty much already did . Apparently you skipped the OP. I specifically said the articles I saw in Yahoo! News. You're changing the subject of the OP. At this point his confirmation no longer has anything to do with his positions.
And personally I no longer think Ford has anything to do with it either. His confirmation looks like a done deal to me.
I'm just commenting here, not taking sides other than the side of fairness.

Fairness? That is a joke. The comments of Graham, Kavanaugh, McConnell, and others about the "advice and consent" clause after what they did to Obama over his nomination? It has all to do with his positions on other topics, not just the Ford fiasco. That is what their jobs is, not this just give it to Trump bull shit. You are right that it looks like a "done deal" just as it did when he was nominated.