Message from @Orteid
Discord ID: 498198842764951573
Two votes are getting canceled out.
daines will not vote, but the alaskan senator who voted against kavanaugh, will vote yes
How silly must that woman feel.
so daines gets his vote instead of her
no.
"Oh a democrat flipped? FUCK"
murkowski said she'll vote 'present'
"WHY DID I DO THIS THEN"
Maybe the atheists should use feminists to infiltrate organized religion and rot it from the inside out.
I'm surprised that some of the red-state Dems up in 2018 wouldn't try to thread the needle by voting Present.
So Daines is absent and Murkowski is covering him by not voting 'no'.
I'm impressed if even one democrat can vote like an individual and not a party puppet
Daines is such a twit for skipping this vote.
The only plausible backstab (without extra-legal fuckery) would be if Flake flakes and Murkowski votes 'no'.
I'm not 100% on Kavanaugh anymore tbh. What with that of "LUL this is the work of the Clintons" from his opening statement
You're entitled to be wrong.
How dare he react to the most vicious smearjob since Clarence Thomas, eh?
he didn't say it's the work of the clintons
"revenge on behalf of the clintons"
he said it's revenge on behalf of the clintons
very different thing
you're right
my misquote
It's the work of the very same Dem machine that produced the Steele dossier.
but the point is the same. Despite how right he is to be angry, the degree to which he became emotional was a little troubling
Revenge on behalf of the Clintons is clearly involved at some level, it's more a matter whether they were involved with manufacturing the claims or merely promoting them.
The voting is about to begin
Though naming outside parties does put him in a bit of a bind, because it means that he'll probably have to recuse in the future
well, that Kavanaugh is now surely biased against Democrats, is totally their fault.
Scoob, you're behaving like a smuggie at this point.
like a what
oh those things have a name
MSNBC ran a headline the other day along the lines of "Is Brett Kavanaugh too damaged from the nomination proceedings to make a competent jurist?"
Which raises a big question: is it permissible for the fact that somebody was damaged by being put under so much unfair pressure during a nomination proceeding to affect their eligibility for the seat they were nominated for?
pls @ me when it's about to happen, i'll be playing NieR
Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be the most well-tempered people in the entire country, not able to be emotionally manipulated or angered to the point Kavanaugh was. They are supposed to be level-headed and impartial, no matter how partisan something may be.
I'm NOT saying he's unfit to be a Supreme Court Justice
it presents a slippery slope where it seems it is possible to, if you have a sufficiently-loyal partisan base, take almost anyone out of the running by a cavalcade of mere allegations.